Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Then Arnold is not being truthful.  In earlier accounts, Arnold was kicked by a policeman and then another policeman came by with a large gun and was crying.  In The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Arnold coalesced the two policemen into one, now one policeman is kicking him, holding a weapon, and crying instead of two.  The other individual was not simply cut out of the program, his actions are all being performed by one man. 

Paul - you are making the classic mistake of not bothering to first find out what else Gordon Arnold said that wasn't in the article Golz had written. You see - Earl only printed a few senteces of what Arnold told him. About a year or so ago I reached Earl and we talked about how people are misusing what was stated in his article. They see a staged photo and think that's Gordon replicating where he stood - they read a couple of lines and think that's all Gordon said during the lenghty interview he had with Earl. Earl Golz was baffled by the fact that people should know better and to be honest - so am I. The article was not meant to be a blow by blow description of everything Gordon had said. An officer did approach Gordon and I believe it was said he had a revolver drawn like several other officers did at the time they were ordered to merge on the RR yard. Thinking shots were just fired from knoll - an officer would be a fool not to have their weapon drawn. The second officer who was right behind the first man had a shotgun with him.

Another new edition to Arnold's story is the description of the man (or, according to his earlier accounts, the second of two individuals) who harrased him on the knoll.  In this new account, Arnold says the man didn't wear a hat and had dirty hands.  This appears in none of Arnold's earlier accounts but it reminds you of the account of Joe Marshall Smith.  It is pretty apparent that Arnold read Smith's story and mixed it in with his own.

It's not a new account at all - Earl just didn't include it in his artical. Again, you just do not know the whole story and are assuming things based on what you don't know.

Arnold also addded a railroad worker to his account in The Men Who Killed Kennedy.  When he is show the "Badgeman" enlargement, supposedly for the first time, he says: “Would this fella back here [the figure with the hardhat] be the railroad man I asked you about this morning? Because when I was walking to the site, and I had never told anybody that I had, when we were out there filming, it reminded me that there was a railroad worker just standing out there by the railroad tracks.”

There were RR workers out by the tracks. Ed Hoffman seen one of them take the rifle when the Hat Man tossed it over the steam pipe. The Bell film shows two such RR workers near the RR boxes at the west end of the fence as Kennedy's limo is heading towards Stemmons Freeway. Arnold never says the apparent RR worker in the Badge Man image is the man he saw - he only mentions seeing a RR worker out by the tracks when he tried to get to the overpass. And yes - he told Turner's people about the RR worker before seeing the Badge Man image. Turner's people editied out much of Arnold's interview and it is wrong IMO for someone like yourself to assume things without knowing what all was said during the interview before the editing took place.

So now, one of the policemen has not only been subtracted but he has been replaced by a railroad worker who really doesn't do much of anything.  It is quite remarkable that this new account fits so perfectly with what Mack and White are about to show him.  How can we be sure that Arnold never saw the work that Gary Mack and Jack White discovered, published, and publicized within the Kennedy assassination research community?

I cannot make this any clearer - Gordon Arnold never said that the hatless officer who approached him after the assassination was the assassin who fired from behind him. Gordon only questioned it possibly being the man he saw because the police unifomed man in the Badge Man image didn't appear to be wearing a hat either. What Gordon didn't know is that there were other officers in and around the RR yard who were not wearing their hats and they can be seen in some of the images of the RR yard taken after the assassination. You don't seem to fully appraciate Gordon Arnold's mindset. It took a lot of work for Earl Golz to get Arnold to tell his story back in 1978. Earl said that Gordon did not want to be known. Gordon had heard stories of what happened to people that saw or heard too much. When he saw the Badge Man image in the MWKK interview and had realized that he may have seen one of the assassins - he had one of his worst fears hit him all at once and this is why he said that had he of known about the this (the Badge Man image) that he would not have given the interview.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 261
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Paul - you are making the classic mistake of not bothering to first find out what else Gordon Arnold said that wasn't in the article Golz had written. You see - Earl only printed a few senteces of what Arnold told him. About a year or so ago I reached Earl and we talked about how people are misusing what was stated in his article. They see a staged photo and think that's Gordon replicating where he stood - they read a couple of lines and think that's all Gordon said during the lenghty interview he had with Earl. Earl Golz was baffled by the fact that people should know better and to be honest - so am I. The article was not meant to be a blow by blow description of everything Gordon had said. An officer did approach Gordon and I believe it was said he had a revolver drawn like several other officers did at the time they were ordered to merge on the RR yard. Thinking shots were just fired from knoll - an officer would be a fool not to have their weapon drawn. The second officer who was right behind the first man had a shotgun with him."

It no longer matters what was edited out of The Men Who Killed Kennedy or from Golz's article. Arnold's account does change between them. Arnold described two men for Golz, we don't know if they're assassins or not. The first man kicks Arnold while the second man comes out with a shotgun and is crying. Now for The Men Who Killed Kennedy, one man comes out with a shotgun, is crying, and kicks Arnold. Is it possible that they edited out Arnold's description of the second man? Yes but what would this man be doing? Arnold already has one policeman with a shotgun, doing the kicking, and crying.

"There were RR workers out by the tracks. Ed Hoffman seen one of them take the rifle when the Hat Man tossed it over the steam pipe. The Bell film shows two such RR workers near the RR boxes at the west end of the fence as Kennedy's limo is heading towards Stemmons Freeway. Arnold never says the apparent RR worker in the Badge Man image is the man he saw - he only mentions seeing a RR worker out by the tracks when he tried to get to the overpass. And yes - he told Turner's people about the RR worker before seeing the Badge Man image. Turner's people editied out much of Arnold's interview and it is wrong IMO for someone like yourself to assume things without knowing what all was said during the interview before the editing took place."

Using one suspect witness to defend another is not the best idea. In an FBI report of June 28, 1967 says:

"Hoffman said he was standing a few feet south of the railroad on Stemmons Freeway when the motorcade passed him taking President Kennedy to Parkland

Hospital. Hoffman said he observed two white males, clutching something dark to their chests with both hands, running from the rear of the Texas School Book Depository building. The men were running north on the railroad, then turned east, and Hoffman lost sight of both of the men.

In newer accounts, Hoffman described the assassin as wearing as business suit.

"I cannot make this any clearer - Gordon Arnold never said that the hatless officer who approached him after the assassination was the assassin who fired from behind him. Gordon only questioned it possibly being the man he saw because the police unifomed man in the Badge Man image didn't appear to be wearing a hat either. What Gordon didn't know is that there were other officers in and around the RR yard who were not wearing their hats and they can be seen in some of the images of the RR yard taken after the assassination. You don't seem to fully appraciate Gordon Arnold's mindset. It took a lot of work for Earl Golz to get Arnold to tell his story back in 1978. Earl said that Gordon did not want to be known. Gordon had heard stories of what happened to people that saw or heard too much. When he saw the Badge Man image in the MWKK interview and had realized that he may have seen one of the assassins - he had one of his worst fears hit him all at once and this is why he said that had he of known about the this (the Badge Man image) that he would not have given the interview."

If the two policemen were not assassination conspirators, then why would they take Arnold's film and why was it never returned?

Edited by Paul Kerrigan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for The Men Who Killed Kennedy, one man comes out with a shotgun, is crying, and kicks Arnold. 

Paul - Nowhere have I ever heard on Arnold's MWKK interview that Gordon said the man with the gun had a shotgun. He gave an exaggerated visual interpretation as to how large the barrel looked and that was all. I believe that you are making a wrongful assuption that is of your own making.

Using one suspect witness to defend another is not the best idea.  In an FBI report of June 28, 1967 says:

"Hoffman said he was standing a few feet south of the railroad on Stemmons Freeway when the motorcade passed him taking President Kennedy to Parkland

Hospital. Hoffman said he observed two white males, clutching something dark to their chests with both hands, running from the rear of the Texas School Book Depository building. The men were running north on the railroad, then turned east, and Hoffman lost sight of both of the men.

In newer accounts, Hoffman described the assassin as wearing as business suit.

Try and keep in mind that Ed said nothing - an interpreter tried to relay to the FBI what Ed was trying to say. Those who know Ed understand that he has a poor understanding of the English language. One should alos consider the FBI's attempts to down play many of the witnesses statements. The FBI failed to mention the second man Arnold Rowland had told them about seeing on the 6th floor. The FBI said Mrs. Hartman saw where a bullet had hit the turf and how it lead mack to the TSBD when in fact Mrs. Hartman said it lead back to the knoll. Take Ed's alleged statement as told by the FBI - Ed's position from the RR tracks was about 300 feet. The statement that he was just a few feet south of the RR tracks is a good example of how the facts are quickly lost through interpretation. I have heard Ed's accounting several times and only the FBI version is different, now why do you think that is? I will also say this ... Ed Hoffman has then and still wants to take a polygraph. Someone had told him that such a test can not be given to someone with his disability and I have since discovered that this is false. At this time if the expense can be met and Ed can fit the testers criteria - a polygraph will be given to Ed Hoffman in the near furture.

Now getting back to Gordon Arnold. The mentioning of a RR worker is something that occurred before he was shown the Badge Man images. It is a fact that there were RR workers out near the overpass by the tracks - not inclusing those on the overpass two other RR workers are seen near the RR boxes in the Bell film - that is a fact that cannot be disputed.

If the two policemen were not assassination conspirators, then why would they take Arnold's film and why was it never returned?

No one said they were not conspirators. The issue was over whether or not Gordon Arnold believed one of them to have been the man in the Badge Man image. On the other hand they could have been real cops and sent the film along the proper lines and it disappeared just as other evidence seems to have done. There oibviously appears to have been someone filming the motorcade from above the walkway. Either the film was taken or Gordon wanted to hang onto it and never let anyone see it. The later option doesn't seem logical in light of Gordon thinking that there was never anything to show he was on the knoll during the assassination.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul - Nowhere have I ever heard on Arnold's MWKK interview that Gordon said the man with the gun had a shotgun. He gave an exaggerated visual interpretation as to how large the barrel looked and that was all. I believe that you are making a wrongful assuption that is of your own making.

Bill mentioned this on another forum and I went and checked and he is right. It seems that it has been the different researchers that make these jumps back and forth and not Arnold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm Mr. Peter's penned:

Bill mentioned this on another forum and I went and checked and he is right. It seems that it has been the different researchers that make these jumps back and forth and not Arnold

dgh01: so let's get this straight -- Bill Miller say's something contrary to what Paul puts forth [which may or not be the case], Mr. Peter's reads this thread, goes to another forum, [which Bill Miller runs] sees the same Bill Miller comment there, [that Bill Miller made here] then declares Bill correct, because: Bill Miller declared some such thing on the other forum, do I have that right?

Is it any wonder this case has languished for so many years?

The logic is under whelming, to say the least...

Keep up the good work, Paul :clapping

David Healy

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm Mr. Peter's penned:

Bill mentioned this on another forum and I went and checked and he is right. It seems that it has been the different researchers that make these jumps back and forth and not Arnold

dgh01: so let's get this straight -- Bill Miller say's something contrary to what Paul puts forth [which may or not be the case], Mr. Peter's reads this thread, goes to another forum, [which Bill Miller co-runs] sees the same Bill Miller comment there, [that Bill Miller has made in this thread] then declares Bill correct, because: Bill Miller declared same such thing on the other forum, do I have that right?

Is it any wonder this case has languished for so many years?

The logic is under whelming, to say the least...

Keep up the good work, Paul :clapping

David Healy

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Paul - Nowhere have I ever heard on Arnold's MWKK interview that Gordon said the man with the gun had a shotgun. He gave an exaggerated visual interpretation as to how large the barrel looked and that was all. I believe that you are making a wrongful assuption that is of your own making."

But the gun is clearly not the revolver that Arnold said the first man brandished. I believe Arnold said that one of the men held a revolver. It is most likely we was referring to a large shotgun.

"Try and keep in mind that Ed said nothing - an interpreter tried to relay to the FBI what Ed was trying to say. Those who know Ed understand that he has a poor understanding of the English language. One should alos consider the FBI's attempts to down play many of the witnesses statements. The FBI failed to mention the second man Arnold Rowland had told them about seeing on the 6th floor. The FBI said Mrs. Hartman saw where a bullet had hit the turf and how it lead mack to the TSBD when in fact Mrs. Hartman said it lead back to the knoll. Take Ed's alleged statement as told by the FBI - Ed's position from the RR tracks was about 300 feet. The statement that he was just a few feet south of the RR tracks is a good example of how the facts are quickly lost through interpretation. I have heard Ed's accounting several times and only the FBI version is different, now why do you think that is? I will also say this ... Ed Hoffman has then and still wants to take a polygraph. Someone had told him that such a test can not be given to someone with his disability and I have since discovered that this is false. At tghis time if the expense can be met and Ed can fit the testers criteria - a polygraph will be given to Ed Hoffman in the near furture."

But Hoffman does not describe what is seen in the Moorman photo. He describes a man in a business suit shooting the President. I also believe that he discusses an assassin adjusting his hat in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, I'm not sure. But anyway, Hoffman does not verify Arnold nor does Lee Bowers who had the best view of the Grassy Knoll. He describes policemen on the Triple Underpass, not behind the Knoll area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh01: so let's get this straight -- Bill Miller say's something contrary to what Paul puts forth [which may or not be the case], Mr. Peter's reads this thread, goes to another forum, [which Bill Miller co-runs] sees the same Bill Miller comment there, [that Bill Miller has made in this thread] then declares Bill correct, because: Bill Miller declared same such thing on the other forum, do I have that right?

Is it any wonder this case has languished for so many years?

I think the reason may be more tuned towards some people being languished over this case because it's too complexed for them to follow it. The fact that Larry has told you in one thread that he has been on Lancer's site and followed the threads should not surprise you that he would know something about Gordon Arnold or Ed Hoffman. By the way, I understood Larry to say that when he went back and reviewed the threads on Lancer that he noticed that it did look as though it was the researchers who were attributing their misinterpretations of the interviews to the witnesses stories, so I can see why you personally may have languished over the complexity of the JFK assassination case.

I might also add that I do not "co-run" Lancer's forum. I am not an administrator, I don't have access to the adminstrator's codes nor do I make administrative decisions on that forum. I participate on Lancer along with its many other members. You have been told this on other occassions and yet you continue to misstate the facts.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the gun is clearly not the revolver that Arnold said the first man brandished.  I believe Arnold said that one of the men held a revolver.  It is most likely we was referring to a large shotgun.

You see - that is your interpretation, Paul. Gordon was relaying his imnpression of what it looked like to be looking down the barrel of a gun. Gordon never went any further than that and it is only you that is implying he must have been talking about a shotgun. I would suggest you going back and watching that interview again.

But Hoffman does not describe what is seen in the Moorman photo.  He describes a man in a business suit shooting the President.  I also believe that he discusses an assassin adjusting his hat in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, I'm not sure.  But anyway, Hoffman does not verify Arnold nor does Lee Bowers who had the best view of the Grassy Knoll.  He describes policemen on the Triple Underpass, not behind the Knoll area.

I am starting to understand your confusion. In fact, Hoffman does describe the man seen in Moorman's photo. You will see the top of this man's hat just above the fence line near the tree behind Emmett Hudson. Lee Bowers described this man at the same location Hoffman places him at. I might also add that Ed Hoffman never saw the man actually shoot a weapon. Ed saw a flash of light or smoke and seen the man turn away from the fence holding a weapon. I think you are confusing the Hat Man Hoffman seen with the Badge Man and they are two different individuals altogther. Ed, nor Lee Bowers claimed to have seen the Badge Man, but there is a logical reason for this ... the overhanging tree branches that are seen in Moorman's photograph helped hide him from view. From Bowers elevated view the low tree branches would have hidden the Badge Man from Lee's view because of Bowers downward angle to that area. The same can be said for Hoffman because they would have hidden Badge Man's upper body while the cars parked in the lot hid Badge Man's lower body.

I would show you the suited Hat Man as seen in the Willis photograph, but I cannot get this forum to take another image for some reason.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man in the suit and hat that Hoffman claimed to have seen as seen in the Moorman #5 and Willis #5 photos. The figure is seen against the skyline in both and has some overhanging foliage blocking the facial area in the Willis photograph. This figure is not seen in that location in photos looking over the fence in a westernly direction after the assassination had taken place.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Logic tell's me it's a black man & he is seen approaching the wall/steps from the east in the Bell film just seconds before this b/w footage was taken.

Your "evidence" that this fellow is white is pretty pathetic.

You have previously pointed to a area near his neck which seems to have convinced you he is not darked skinned.

Does this mean I have I stumpled upon proof that the funkiest man on the planet is actually white?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack.

I'm convinced there's an alternative to the Arnold scenario & I see something different above the wall in Moorman5.

I've had two comments about this face, one told me the head is just too big & the other told me to stay of the acid, with respect to both of these researchers, I ain't helped much.

I still see two eyes, below which is a nose, a mouth & to the left an ear.

What are the odds?

Would you mind telling me what you make of it please?

Many thanks.

Alan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic tell's me it's a black man & he is seen approaching the wall/steps from the east in the Bell film just seconds before this b/w footage was taken.

Your "evidence" that this fellow is white is pretty pathetic.

You have previously pointed to a area near his neck which seems to have convinced you he is not darked skinned.

I believe that logic you spoke of came from me when I first pointed out to you that it was a black man you were referring to in the Bell film rather than the light skinned Arnold. Now let's go over a few more of my pathetic observations if you don't mind.

First of all - let's look at the clothes this man in the Bell film is wearing. American military men in overseas caps wear tailored looking clothes ... not something you'd expect to see in a MC Hammer video. Those baggy pants and shirt are not anything like what I have seen on our service men. (see image one below)

Next - let's take a close look at that cap on the man in the Bell film and note how far down over the side of his head it comes. It's also semi-round and unlike the puptent shape of an overseas cap. Did you not think this was important when considering if the man on the walkway in the overseas cap was this black man in the Bell film! There are black men seen on some of the assassination images that are wearing semi-rounded type caps like that Emmett Hudson wore, but they look nothing like an overseas cap, nor do they have that wide "V" shape in the back at it's base. (see image two and three below)

Does this mean I have I stumpled upon proof that the funkiest man on the planet is actually white?

I think Micheal Jackson's camp might not agree with you on who the funkiest light skinned black man is. Unlike the black man you used for an example - the man on the walkway in the overseas cap has his upper shoulders and head in shadow and his complexion is still light in color. Do you really think the Godfather of Soul in the image you used would look that light under the same circumstances ... I certainly do not.

Thanks for allowing me to share some more pathetic observations with you.

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

×
×
  • Create New...