Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

.... N E W ....



GORDON ARNOLD - Additional Claims about the Knoll-Wall

Good Day....

The following are just a portion of the 16-page transcript quotes of a forty-five minute interview of self-claimed Dealey Plaza witness, Gordon Leslie Arnold, that was administered June 6, 1989 by interviewer Conover Hunt for the "Oral History Collection" done at "The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza."

Isn't it amazing how, no matter which side of the "picket fence" you are on with respect to what you think about Arnold's claims, that the mere mention of his name sometimes --much more often with a few persons, than others-- can be enough to get one's self feeling (hopefully temporarily) just -- a --- bit ---- anxious.

The transcript is annotated that it was originally transcribed by Stephen Fagin, November 2003, then, the transcript was revised by Stephen Fagin and Gary Mack in "January/February 2004".

What follows are just some of the 6-6-89 additional claims and/or additional details that Arnold made to Hunt in 1989 (after Arnold's "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" 1988 shown interview had already been filmed and aired) that have not been previously publicized in any other newspaper article, documentary, or book.


(in transcript-quoted, transcript-chronological order)

Arnold claims, "And on that particular morning, I was going to be going to Fort Wainwright, Alaska, the following week, and my parents had bought me a brand new, modern camera to make movies with"

Please recall that in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" documentary that Arnold stated, matter-of-factly (a couple times), that the movie camera belonged to his Mother, and, he claimed, because it was sentimentally his Mother's that was the reason he initially did not want to give up the entire camera to the, supposed, "badgeman" that he claimed kicked him a couple times.

In this 1989 "SFM" interview Arnold claims he parked, "on the other side of the tower," "before noon time."

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

Arnold claimed on 11-22-63 he had been in the United States Army, "approximately nine months," and that during his three years of service he, "was in a special unit." (but he never details which "special unit")

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

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

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

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

Arnold claimed the, "agent" told Arnold that the agent, "was with either the CIA or Secret Service."

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

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

The ground between the retaining wall and the picket fence line may, or may not, 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 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)

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

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

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

*NOTE* that here Arnold said a bullet went over him but does not say --as he did in 1978 and 1988-- that a bullet went past his left ear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the experiences of war, in hunting, for target-practice, and when trap and skeet shooting, most persons still do call them "shooter's glasses," Gord-ee-oh.

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

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

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

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

Then this strange exchange:

Arnold: Well, I went into the service…

Conover: What year?

Arnold: …in '66.

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

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

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

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

If I recall correctly, Gary Mack once emailed me and said that "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"/Steve Revile French-Corsican-mafia-were-the-assassins-theory was "nonsense."

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

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

Please read my study, "The WILMA BOND Photos Do Not Timestamp ARNOLD's Presence Anywhere on the Grassy Knoll" linked to below.

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

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

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

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

But, in utilizing and calculating on a professional surveyed map from the area where "Arnold", supposedly, stood during the attack --from the intersection point of the Z-202 "black dog man" mandatory line-of-sight with the Z-315.6 MOORMAN mandatory line-of-sight for the "Arnold" image,

or,

from that BDM Z-202 line-of-sight 3' from the picket fence,

or,

from the Z-315.6 MOORMAN mandatory line-of-sight for the "Arnold" image at 3' from the picket fence-- the highway sign (presumably, the "Stemmons" sign) would horizontally block President Kennedy from Arnold's view from before Z-133 (on the left north edge of the sign), through only about Z-160 to 175 (when the president would have emerged from the right south edge of the sign)

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

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

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

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

Ahhhh-hah !!....

Now we know why the, supposed, "badgeman" wanted to get "Arnold's" film....

.... "badgeman" saw the camera, and/or saw the camera laying on the ground facing him and the "badgeman" thought he may have been exposed on film....

.... But wait....

.... Why did the "badgeman," completely illogically, give the movie camera BACK to Arnold?!!?

----you know, so Arnold could keep safe the same movie camera that, most likely, now also had "badgeman's" fresh fingerprints well preserved for the authorities to find on the movie camera's outside AND on the inside the movie camera????

Maybe it was just that the "badgeman" already knew beforehand that he, or any of the other conspirators, did not need to ever worry about any serious investigation by the "authorities."

With some of these additional claims that Arnold "illuminated" and ruminated about during his 1989 "SFM" interview, you can count on that I will be updating my research study, "The WILMA BOND Photos Do Not Timestamp ARNOLD's Presence Anywhere on the Grassy Knoll," currently available for all, here ....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14115&st=0#entry163847



Best Regards in Research,

Don



Donald Roberdeau
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker
Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges clearly


T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore

photo-617.gif

National Terror Alert for the United States:

advisory7regional.gif

Edited by Don Roberdeau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 261
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don wrote:

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

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

Don, I do not understand this gratuitous insult. You are accusing me of fabricating

my Moorman research WITHOUT KNOWING anything about it (judging from this

totally inappropriate remark).

If you knew what you are talking about, you would know that in discovering

Badgeman I NEVER DID ANY PHOTO "ENHANCEMENT" OR "WATERCOLORIZED

ENHANCEMENT" NOR ALTERATION TO THE IMAGE FOUND IN MOORMAN. All I

did was OPTIMUM EXPOSURE of the image...no enhancement. (see attached)

I did no "watercolorized enhancement"; using totally transparent photo-tinting oils,

(for use in my slide shows to help viewers visualize) I hand-tinted certain areas

on a b/w print to help viewers see what I could see. You make it sound as if

I did something SINISTER to alter the image. I am very disappointed that

you pontificate on this subject as if you know what you are talking about.

The transparent oils DID NOT ALTER THE IMAGE...just added color.

It is interesting that you mention the subject of "shooter's glasses" being brought

up by Arnold (unknown to me). After Gary Mack and I showed the Badgeman

image to the National Enquirer, that publication in early 80s convened some experts

at a Washington hotel (some experts from the National Rifle Assn as well as Harold

Weisberg), and had Gary and me show them the Badgeman photos. I projected

the b/w slides (at that time I had not done the colored version). EVERYONE WHO

SAW THE SLIDES AGREED THAT IT WAS A SHOOTER IN A POLICE UNIFORM, and

one of the NRA experts even exclaimed "HE IS WEARING SHOOTER'S GLASSES!"

I asked what shooter's glasses were, and he explained they are large yellow-tinted

glasses used to see targets better. I had never heard of shooter's glasses. I have

never talked to Gordon Arnold, so he did not learn of shooter's glasses from me.

It is interesting that he described a cop wearing shooter's glasses, and that

20 years ago an NRA expert looking at the Badgeman image ALSO SAW

A COP WEARING SHOOTER'S GLASSES. I could not even see what he saw,

but took his word as an interesting observation by an expert.

Thanks for your interesting research and posting, but next time, be more sure of what

you are talking about before insulting honest research!

Cordially,

Jack White

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Day Jack.... Your "beef," then, needs to be taken up and resolved with GARY MACK.

Several years ago, I casually inquiried of several persons and forums (which I believe also included the old, free "JFK Research Forum" which you were a member of at the time) and I simply asked about the enhancement processes utilized that resulted in the colorized, cropped, enhanced version of MOORMAN #5 seen in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." (one of my considerations at the time was how much taller the straightline apparent upper edges and southeast corner of the retaining wall do look higher in enhancements, versus the fact that the upper edges and southeast corner of the retaining wall is seen to be comparatively and distinctly-noticeably lower in un-enhanced MOORMAN #5 copies)

I received no definative answers (including none from yourself) until GARY MACK emailed me and specifically told me that the colorized, cropped, enhanced version of MOORMAN #5 seen in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" had been, in his words, "water-colorized" by you.

Not caring a wit about the non-JFK-politico-machinations that goes on too much between the overall people of "TEAM JFK" (that's ALL of US, folks :{)-] ), and, therefore, my not knowing that at that time that you and GARY MACK had some sort of previous (hopefully temporary?) parting-of-the-ways (a real shame for ALL of us, I might add), but in knowing that the two of you had worked very closely together in the early 80's and "TMWKK" on the, supposed, "badgeman" image, it was logical for me to accept his word, who, as far as I knew, was still your compadre'.

Of course, Jack, compared to you, I (who still prefers using my olde' Rollei, Nikon, and a Pentax single reflex, etc., 35mm camera's to using my new digital camera) are the person with the photographic printing expertise.... but....

....No matter how you attempt to "spin" it, when a photo or its photo scan is studied and worked upon, and anything except enlarging or cropping is done to that photo or scan.... in my "book," that IS called "enhancing".

What very mildly bothers me (besides not providing the photographers name and/or exact photo or frame number, and, only because when I save a scan I like to archive it with a precise title) about when some persons present enhanced photos or and/or a film frame(s) accompanied by their interpretation(s), is that, usually, all that is presented is the enhanced version.... I am a firm believer that people are basically smart, and, therefore, in being smart he/she can be responsible for engaging his/her brain, making up his/her own mind about something, so, the original photo/frame, imho, should be presented right along with the enhanced version so that the viewing person --any persons-- can compare the two side-by-side and decide for him/herself what is/is not revealed in the photographic evidence.

Jack, do you recall the name of the NRA expert who said he saw shooter's glasses on BM? Are there ANY archived threads on "JFK Research" that have ever discussed shooter's glasses? (none that I can find are "googled" in any newsgroup thread or any other forum)

Anyway, I have no hard feelings, at all, towards you on a personal, non-JFK level, and have known and followed your work for the majority of my 29+ years researching the case (since your contributions for and to us all via the HSCA's partial investigation)

An aside.... I have been trying through the Dallas F.B.I. to obtain a print of the first "U.P.I." negative/MOORMAN photo that I have heard they have (or had, at one point) in the Dallas files. Their "help" and "responses" have been worth precisely "squat".... Any helpful suggestions, Jack?

Don Roberdeau

CV-67, "Big John," USS John F. Kennedy Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSE...NOUNCEMENT.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/BOND...PINGarnold.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/GHOS...update2001.html

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

"(D)rehm (sic) seemed to think the shots came from in FRONT OF or BESIDE the President." (my EMPHASIS)

----CHARLES F. BREHM, a gunfire-battle experienced, WWII D-day, United States Army Ranger veteran, quoted just minutes after the attack while still standing within Dealey Plaza, "Dallas Times Herald," 11-22-63, final edition

Edited by Don Roberdeau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Day Jack.... Your "beef," then, needs to be taken up and resolved with GARY MACK.

.....

I MIGHT HAVE SUSPECTED THAT GARY WAS BEHIND YOUR MISINFORMATION. THOUGH

HE STILL CLAIMS INTEREST IN BADGE MAN (BADGEMAN). HE PUTS OUT LOTS OF

MISLEADING INFORMATION. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY.

......

I received no definative answers (including none from yourself) until GARY MACK emailed me and specifically told me that the colorized, cropped, enhanced version of MOORMAN #5 seen in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" had been, in his words, "water-colorized" by you.

.......

I DO NOT RECALL YOU EVER ASKING ME ANYTHING ABOUT BADGEMAN. I WOULD NEVER

HAVE DODGED YOUR ANSWER, BUT WOULD HAVE STATED EXACTLY THE SAME AS MY

ABOVE POSTING.

......

Of course, Jack, compared to you, I (who still prefers using my olde' Rollei, Nikon, and a Pentax single reflex, etc., 35mm camera's to using my new digital camera) are the person with the photographic printing expertise.... but....

....No matter how you attempt to "spin" it, when a photo or its photo scan is studied and worked upon, and anything except enlarging or cropping is done to that photo or scan.... in my "book," that IS called "enhancing".

.......

SORRY, DON...BUT "YOUR BOOK" IS WRONG IN TERMINOLOGY...ESPECIALLY IN THE

AGE OF COMPUTERS. "ENHANCEMENT" IS NOW UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AS BEING

"COMPUTERIZED ENHANCEMENT". YOU NEED TO UPDATE YOUR DEFINITIONS. CROPPING

AND ENLARGING ARE NOT "ENHANCEMENTS". MAKING THE BEST POSSIBLE PRINT IS

NOT AN "ENHANCEMENT". SOME HAVE BEEN CALLING MY OIL-TINTED VERSION AN

"ENHANCEMENT", BUT IT IS NOT. AN ENHANCEMENT IS A TECHNIQUE WHICH BRINGS

OUT SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE SEEN. IN COLORING A B/W PRINT ALL I WAS

ATTEMPTING TO DO WAS DELINEATE AREAS IN THE PHOTO SO THAT MY AUDIENCE

COULD SEE WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO. IT WAS MERELY A GUIDE...NOT RESEARCH...

BUT AN AID TO UNDERSTANDING. AGAIN, ALL I DID TO "DISCOVER" BADGEMAN WAS

TO MAKE AN "OPTIMUM EXPOSURE" AS I DEMONSTRATED, AND THERE HE WAS. I DID

NO MANPULATION OF ANY SORT WHICH QUALIFIES AS "ENHANCEMENT". ALL I DID

WAS MAKE A PERFECTLY EXPOSED COPY.

.....

Jack, do you recall the name of the NRA expert who said he saw shooter's glasses on BM? Are there ANY archived threads on "JFK Research" that have ever discussed shooter's glasses? (none that I can find are "googled" in any newsgroup thread or any other forum)

.....

UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT MAKE A RECORD OF THOSE PRESENT. I RECALL ONLY THAT

HAROLD WEISBERG WAS THERE, AND SEVERAL PERSONS FROM THE NRA, AND I THINK

A PERSON FROM THE NATL ENQUIRER. I DO REMEMBER THE "SHOOTER'S GLASSES"

COMMENT WHICH STUCK WITH ME BECAUSE I WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE TERM.

I REMEMBER HAROLD COMMENTING THAT THIS COULD BE A MAJOR BREAK IN THE

CASE. I DO NOT REMEMBER WHETHER THE NE RAN A STORY, BUT I THINK NOT. I

DO REMEMBER THAT THE CAB DRIVER WHO DROVE US TO THE HOTEL WAS A BIG

FAN OF THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS, AND WHEN HE FOUND WE WERE FROM TEXAS,

HE HARANGUED US FOR 15 MINUTES ABOUT WHY THE REDSKINS WERE SUPERIOR

TO THE COWBOYS. THAT IS ALL I KNOW. MAYBE GARY MACK REMEMBERS MORE

DETAILS. PERHAPS GARY'S MEMORY IS BETTER THAN MINE ON THIS MEETING,

OR PERHAPS HE TOOK NOTES. TWENTY YEARS AGO IS A LONG TIME TO REMEMBER

SMALL DETAILS THAT DID NOT SEEM IMPORTANT AT THE TIME. IF GARY GIVES YOU

ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT DETAILS OF THIS MEETING, LET US KNOW. I NO LONGER

HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH HIM.

.......

Anyway, I have no hard feelings, at all, towards you on a personal, non-JFK level, and have known and followed your work for the majority of my 29+ years researching the case (since your contributions for and to us all via the HSCA's partial investigation)

An aside.... I have been trying through the Dallas F.B.I. to obtain a print of the first "U.P.I." negative/MOORMAN photo that I have heard they have (or had, at one point) in the Dallas files. Their "help" and "responses" have been worth precisely "squat".... Any helpful suggestions, Jack?

....

I HAVE NO SUGGESTIONS ABOUT OBTAINING MOORMAN PRINTS. ALL THAT I MADE

COPIES OF WERE FROM PRINTS OBTAINED BY GARY MACK, WHO RETURNED THEM

TO THE OWNERS ONCE I MADE COPIES. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL ACCEPT THAT

I MADE>>>NO ENHANCEMENTS OF ANY KIND<<<TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE. A

CORRECTLY EXPOSED PRINT IS>>>NOT<<< AN ENHANCEMENT. (SEE MY POSTED

STRIP OF EXPOSURES.)

CORDIALLY,

JACK

Don Roberdeau

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Day Jack.... B) Well, "my book" matches the "Webster Dictionary" definition in the sense that the tone of the very same words that you used above to claim what you did was not an enhancement, is actually a match for the very definition of enhancement when you used transparent, colored oils on your MOORMAN #5 cropped enlargement of the retaining wall area seen in "TMWKK":

Main Entry: en·hance

Pronunciation: in-'han(t)s, en-

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): en·hanced; en·hanc·ing

Etymology: Middle English enhauncen, from Anglo-French enhauncer, alteration of Old French enhaucier, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin inaltiare, from Latin in + altus high —more at OLD

Date: 13th century

1 : obsolete : RAISE

2 : HEIGHTEN, INCREASE; especially : to increase or improve in value, quality, desirability, or attractiveness

- en·hance·ment /-'han(t)-sm&nt/ noun

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

....As I said above other than (i.e. not including) enlargement and cropping, I consider all other techniques, especially colorizing an original black and white photo, to be enhancing. This is the very reason that when an enhanced version of a photo or frame is presented, imho, it should always be accompanied by an un-enhanced companion so the viewer can view both, compare them side-by-side, think about the considerations, and, ultimately --as it should be-- decide for him/herself.

....Are there ANY archived threads on "JFK Research" that have ever discussed shooter's glasses being "seen" on "badgeman"?

JW: "I DO NOT RECALL YOU EVER ASKING ME ANYTHING ABOUT BADGEMAN."

....Correct. I never directly asked you my questions about the enhancement processes performed on the MOORMAN #5 cropped enlargement of the retaining wall seen in "TMWKK" (though I should have just emailed you). I posted my enhancement specific processes questions to the public "JFK Research" forum, that you were an active posting member of at the time, in the simple hopes of learning/stimulating/advancing the knowledge --via any/all post responses-- especially for helping those just learning the case, about how the MOORMAN #5 photo was enhanced.

....Do you know what the ASA rating was of the original polaroid film composition that MOORMAN used for capturing her #5? I seem to recall that in those days the Polaroid ASA rating was very high.

Don Roberdeau

CV-67, "Big John," USS John F. Kennedy Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSE...NOUNCEMENT.html

http:// members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/BOND...PINGarnold.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/GHOS...update2001.html

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

TEAMWORK.gif

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/DHS3elevatedYELLOW.gif

for the United States

DHS4highORANGE.gif

for New York City, Northern New Jersey and Washington, D.C.

"Bobby M. Nolan, Texas highway patrolman, Tyler district, was interviewed relative to a bullet fragment removed from the left thigh of Governor Connally, which was turned over to him at Parkland Hospital in Dallas for delivery to the FBI.

Nolan stated his instructions were apparently not clear at the outset and that following contact with his superior officers while at the Dallas Police Department, he turned the bullet fragment over to Captain Will Fritz [Dallas Police Department.] at approximately 7:50 p.m. He stated he had no further information concerning the matter and that his only participation in this series of events was the acceptance of the fragment and delivery of same to Captain Fritz."

---- 7 HSCA 156

Edited by Don Roberdeau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don asked:

....Do you know what the ASA rating was of the original polaroid film composition that MOORMAN used for capturing her #5? I seem to recall that in those days the Polaroid ASA rating was very high.

Answer: I do not know that for sure. I do not think Trask answers the question either.

After 50+ years in the graphics and photography business, I stand by my definition

of ENHANCEMENT as generally understood IN THE GRAPHICS BUSINESS. Dictionary

writers do not necessarily understand trade terminology, and are not necessarily

up to date anyway. ENHANCEMENT nowadays in photography refers to COMPUTER

ENHANCEMENT. Photographic enhancement means BRINGING OUT SOMETHING WHICH

OTHERWISE COULD NOT BE SEEN. Badgeman on a good print could be seen with

a magnifying glass. Using a magnifying glass is NOT enhancement. Simply making

an enlargement IS NOT enhancement, unless it brings out details which could not

otherwise be seen. Coloring a print is NOT enhancement, but is rather a COLOR-CODING

to provide easier understanding. It does NOT enhance the original in any way, but

rather CHANGES it to aid understanding. Graphics professionals understand what I

am talking about. Lay people do not. You are free to disagree, but then you are talking

about something DIFFERENT than I am. If you are to understand my research,

you must UNDERSTAND MY LANGUAGE, not substitute meanings which I do not intend.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....As I said above other than (i.e. not including) enlargement and cropping, I consider all other techniques, especially colorizing an original black and white photo, to be enhancing.

Don, would that definition of enhancing also include someone seeing the image once with their glasses off and again with their glasses on? I can certainly understand why Jack is saying that the film strip he posted is not really an enhancement no more than someone putting a correct filter on their camera lens to take an outdoor photograph.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reply to the Gordon Arnold critics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack White writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then this strange exchange:

Arnold: Well, I went into the service…

Conover: What year?

Arnold: …in ‘66.

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

Gary Mack points outs by saying …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Nowwww*, I can visualize it,

*forrrr surrrrrrrre*….

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

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

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

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

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

Ah-hahh !!....

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

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

but wait....

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

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

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

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

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

From the after-action report filed by Deputy Sheriff W.W. “Bo” Mabra here: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/mabra1.htm

Date: Nov 27th, 1963

I, and officer Orville Smith were standing on the curb in front of Criminal Courts Bldg., appx. 40 ft. East of Houston St., when the car bearing Pres. Kennedy passed. Appx 1 min. after the car turned right onto Houston St. we heard 3 shots. Officer Smith said to me "That sounded like a Deer Rifle." We saw people running toward the parkway and ran in that direction. Officers and People were running to the parkway on north side of Elm. I went to the rail yards and parking area west of the book store and helped search this area.

I talked to a city officer who said "I was stationed in rail yards and had this entire area in view. No body came this way."

A more extensive interview with Mabra can be found in Larry Sneed's book, "No More Silence". This "policeman" said he had been behind the fence for the last hour.

If you look at the Personnel assignments as outlined by Captain Purdue Lawrence to Chief Curry on November 21, 1963 which can be found in 20H493 here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol20_0257a.htm

there was no policeman assigned to the rail yards.

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold2/hargiscomp.jpg

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Mr. BELIN - When was this?

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

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

Mr. MILLER - I couldn't say.

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

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

Mr. BELIN - Tall or short?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...