Additional Claims about the Knoll-Wall

[Tim Carroll]

I don't know, and have never heard of, at least that I recall, Stan Levinson or Stan Levenson, who happens to own a prominent PR firm in Dallas: http://www.levensonpr.com/stan_profile.htm  Gary Mack[/i]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Makes sense that Gary Mack has never heard of Stan Levinson, not, and again, that Bill Miller is Gary Mack's mouthpiece.

Tim Carroll

[Bill Miller]

Makes sense that Gary Mack has never heard of Stan Levinson, not, and again, that Bill Miller is Gary Mack's mouthpiece.

Tim Carroll

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I take it that you do not have any JFK assassination related evidence to discuss. Speaking of mouthpieces ... any idea how you got the details so wrong about Mack's vehicle and job related information?

[Tim Carroll]

Speaking of mouthpieces ... any idea how you got the details so wrong about Mack's vehicle and job related information?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong according to who? Some frontman stalkinghorse mouthpiece like you? The following, posted under your name, not GARY MACK'S, is utterly nonsensical but revealing:

"I don't know, and have never heard of, at least that I recall, Stan Levinson or Stan Levenson, who happens to own a prominent PR firm in Dallas: http://www.levensonpr.com/stan_profile.htm Gary Mack[/i]"

Tim Carroll

Edited December 18, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Bill Miller]

Wrong according to who?  Some frontman stalkinghorse mouthpiece like you?  The following, posted under your name, not GARY MACK'S, is utterly nonsensical but revealing: 

"I don't know, and have never heard of, at least that I recall, Stan Levinson or Stan Levenson, who happens to own a prominent PR firm in Dallas: http://www.levensonpr.com/stan_profile.htm  Gary Mack[/i]"

Tim Carroll

Tim - I have not a clue as to what you are talking about as I am sure most people wouldn't. It was Gary Mack that denied having a white SUV with vanity plates. Until you posted about it - I never gave any thought to what Mack drives, nor had I ever asked him because it never effected any part of the JFK assassination that I was interested in. If you have proof that Mack is in error as to what he drives, then post it if you think it is important.

The same goes with this Stan person that you spoke of. Like White, myself and apparently Mack did - we conducted a 'Google' search to see who he was. None of us have found a connection between him and Gary Mack, so if you know something we don't, then by all means please feel free to share it.

Bill

PS - The offer still goes ... if you ever care to discuss the JFK assassination, then I'm all for it. I'm afraid that SUVs - vanity plates - and Stan Levinson are topics I have no interest in. Maybe John Simkin can have Andy create a section of the forum dedicated to those three topics and you can seek others out who would like to debate such hot topics with you.

[Alan Healy]

Hmmm.

I think everyone here has a diferent idea/view of Gordon Arnold & his story & that includes GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter but I'm not clear whether Tim believes in it or not.

Could you perhaps give us your opinion on the circumstancial evidence that supports Arnold Tim?

Did you talk to Robert Groden about Arnold too? I'd be very interested to hear his current thinking on it, since I've heard his new book will/should be touching on this subject to some degree.

Alan

[Tim Carroll]

Hmmm.

I think everyone here has a diferent idea/view of Gordon Arnold & his story & that includes GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter but I'm not clear whether Tim believes in it or not.

Could you perhaps give us your opinion on the circumstancial evidence that supports Arnold Tim?

Did you talk to Robert Groden about Arnold too? I'd be very interested to hear his current thinking on it, since I've heard his new book will/should be touching on this subject to some degree.

Alan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alan,

I've been through too much this week and it's too late aat night to provide an adequate answer to your question, but I will try as soon as possible. As for Bob Groden, I will not presume to speak for him in any regard, and leave that issue with my respect for him, in contrast to GARY MACK, the Dallas city fathers' front man, using Bill Miller as his front man. I will not neglect to provide you with the best response I can.

Respectfully,

Tim

[Bill Miller]

As for Bob Groden, I will not presume to speak for him in any regard, and leave that issue with my respect for him, in contrast to GARY MACK, the Dallas city fathers' front man, using Bill Miller as his front man. I will not neglect to provide you with the best response I can.

Hey Tim - I speak to Groden more than I do Gary Mack. As a matter of fact - I've dined with Robert many times ... been there with him on several of his birthdays, and have discussed the assassination with him in detail. I guess that this makes me his front man in your mind now. As far as Mack being a front man for the Dallas city planners ... have you got anything to offer to support what you're saying? I have to ask because I had never heard anyone saying such things about Mack like you're doing. Just saying things without proof makes one wonder who you have become a front man for ... apparently an uninformed one at that.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

[Tim Carroll]

Hey Tim - I speak to Groden more than I do Gary Mack.  I guess that this makes me his front man in your mind now. As far as Mack being a front man for the Dallas city planners ...

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've never heard you claim to be authorized to speak for Groden, let alone offensively name-call on his behalf, as you claim with Gary Mack.

Tim Carroll

[Bill Miller]

I've never heard you claim to be authorized to speak for Groden, let alone offensively name-call on his behalf, as you claim with Gary Mack.

Tim Carroll

Try and keep your facts straight, Tim - for that's how you screwed up on the kind of car Mack drives. I have never claimed to be authorized to speak for anyone. However, I can cite what they have told me before and post if accordingly.

[Tim Carroll]

Hmmm.

I think everyone here has a diferent idea/view of Gordon Arnold & his story & that includes GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter but I'm not clear whether Tim believes in it or not.  Could you perhaps give us your opinion on the circumstancial evidence that supports Arnold Tim?

Alan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alan,

I really don't know enough about Gordon Arnold to provide any meaningful analysis. I have of course seen the "enhancements" of the poor quality Moorman polaroid that appear to show a serviceman wearing an overseas cap, to the viewer's left of the purported Badgeman. Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question. I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK. I suppose my detached analysis is that if Mr. Arnold came forward with his story prior to the purported recognition of a serviceman in that location, and if the enhancements were proven to be valid, that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story.

Alan, what did you mean when you referred to "GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter?" How do their views differ?

Tim Carroll

[Jack White]

Hmmm.

I think everyone here has a diferent idea/view of Gordon Arnold & his story & that includes GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter but I'm not clear whether Tim believes in it or not.  Could you perhaps give us your opinion on the circumstancial evidence that supports Arnold Tim?

Alan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alan,

I really don't know enough about Gordon Arnold to provide any meaningful analysis. I have of course seen the "enhancements" of the poor quality Moorman polaroid that appear to show a serviceman wearing an overseas cap, to the viewer's left of the purported Badgeman. Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question. I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK. I suppose my detached analysis is that if Mr. Arnold came forward with his story prior to the purported recognition of a serviceman in that location, and if the enhancements were proven to be valid, that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story.

Alan, what did you mean when you referred to "GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter?" How do their views differ?

Tim Carroll

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...you clearly are not up to speed about Gordon Arnold. Arnold DID NOT "COME FORWARD."

During jury duty in Dallas, the jurors were discussing the assassination. One juror

happened to be a postman WHO WAS A JFK RESEARCHER. He was astonished to hear another

juror say "I was there that day". The postman then quizzed juror Gordon Arnold about his

remembrances. The researcher called Earl Golz at the DMN. Gordon told the SAME story to Earl

who published it in the News. Then he was silent for many years because EVERYONE SAID

HE DID NOT APPEAR IN ANY PHOTOS TAKEN ON 11-22. In the 80s he told the SAME story to

Jim Marrs, who repeated it in his class at UTA. Gordon NEVER SOUGHT PUBLICITY NOR

TRIED TO SELL HIS STORY OR CHANGE IT. In the late 80s, Nigel Turner heard the SAME story

and tried to get Gordon to appear in TMWKK. At first Gordon refused, saying he did not want

any more publicity (he was a very shy man). Nigel appealed to his patriotism, and said

if he would just go on the record ONE TIME, he could point to the documentary to speak

for him. So for Nigel, he repeated the SAME story one final time, reluctantly.

It is not wise to decide Gordon was a phony when you don't know the full story.

Jack

Edited December 21, 2004 by Jack White

[Bill Miller]

  Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question.  I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK.  I suppose my detached analysis is that if Mr. Arnold came forward with his story prior to the purported recognition of a serviceman in that location, and if the enhancements were proven to be valid, that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story.

To add to what Jack said ... Understanding Gordon Arnold is to also first talk to those who knew him well enough to know more about the man than we do. I have never heard where an Arnold critic has ever spent a thin dime calling around to talk to any of his neighbors at the time, friends or family to see what Gordon said, if anything, in the days following the assassination. Their reasons for suspicion involving Arnold stem from his story not being made public until 1978. Most people do not know that it was Arnold being overheard talking to someone in private about his being on the knoll that got Golz to contact Gordon in the first place. Earl Golz told me that it took a lot of convincing on his part to get Gordon to tell his story publicly. The reason Gordon gave for not wanting to come forward was that he had heard that people who had come forward with information that shots came from somewhere else other than the TSBD didn't live long afterwards.

Gordon Arnold was not in the best shape of his life at the time of his Turner interview ... certainly not physically and possibly not emotionally. I don't believe he had spoken of his experience publicly since talking to Earl Golz in 1978. In the MWKK interview, Gordon was led to believe that they may now have proof of him being on the knoll and it was for that reason and it being his duty as Jack said that Gordon agreed to give an interview. You may have noticed that Turner had Gordon conduct the interview before showing him the Badge Man images. Some people thought that it may have been Gordon seeing himself on the knoll at the time of the JFK assassination that upset him with old memories, but this was just not all that happened. It wasn't until Gordon flipped that last page and had seen what looked like a hatless policeman that had fired over his shoulder that he started realizing the complications of what was now happening. Saying that a shot came over his shoulder ... Gordon could live with. It was now Gordon putting 2 and 2 together and thinking that he may have been face to face with this man after the assassination is what caused Gordon to start becoming emotional. The reason for this is quite simple - Gordon had now let the world know that he may have seen one of the assassins and could make the worng people think that he could possibly ID the man. Whether we consider it justified or not - Gordon felt that his life, maybe even his families lives, had now been put in a danger that he had avoided for so many years. It was for this reason that he said that had he of known about this hatless man being involved in the shooting and him saying on TV that he had seen a hatless cop right after the assassination - that he (Gordon) would not have given the interview. In other words he must have felt betrayed although the Turner people may not have known about the hatless cop until Gordon told them about him earlier in the day while out on the knoll. Either way - he felt he had screwed himself when he saw that hatless cop in the Badge Man image and that is what brought on his emotion.

While it is true that one can say that there being a man in a service uniiform on the knoll in Moorman's Polaroid doesn't mean it was Gordon - one has to reconcile how Gordon knew certain details if it had not actually been him in the Badge Man images. He got the uniform right - the timing of the shot coming passed him right - he got the correct side of his head for the shot happening on - he got it right about two individuals in dark clothing being on the scene immediately after the shooting among several other details, as well. One has to ask how did Gordon Arnold know things that no one else had told before him?

Edited December 21, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

  Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question.  I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK.  I suppose my detached analysis is that if Mr. Arnold came forward with his story prior to the purported recognition of a serviceman in that location, and if the enhancements were proven to be valid, that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story.

To add to what Jack said ... Understanding Gordon Arnold is to also first talk to those who knew him well enough to know more about the man than we do. I have never heard where an Arnold critic has ever spent a thin dime calling around to talk to any of his neighbors at the time, friends or family to see what Gordon said, if anything, in the days following the assassination. Their reasons for suspicion involving Arnold stem from his story not being made public until 1978. Most people do not know that it was Arnold being overheard talking to someone in private about his being on the knoll that got Golz to contact Gordon in the first place. Earl Golz told me that it took a lot of convincing on his part to get Gordon to tell his story publicly. The reason Gordon gave for not wanting to come forward was that he had heard that people who had come forward with information that shots came from somewhere else other than the TSBD didn't live long afterwards.

Gordon Arnold was not in the best shape of his life at the time of his Turner interview. I don't believe he had spoken of his experience publicly since talking to Earl Golz in 1978. In the MWKK interview, Gordon was led to believe that they may now have proof of him being on the knoll and it was for that reason he agreed to give an interview. You may have noticed that Turner had Gordon conduct the interview before showing him the Badge Man images. Some people thought that it may have been Gordon seeing himself on the knoll at the time of the JFK assassination that upset him, but this was just not the case. It wasn't until he seen what looked like a hatless policeman that had fired over his shoulder that he started realizing the complications of what was now happening. Saying that a shot came over his shoulder ... Gordon could live with. It was Gordon putting 2 and 2 together and thinking that he may have been face to face with this man after the assassination is what caused Gordon to start becoming emotional. The reason for this is quite simple - Gordon had now let the bad guys know that he may have seen one of them and could possibly ID the man. Whether we consider it justified or not - Gordon felt that his life had now been put in a danger that he had avoided for so many years. It was for this reason that he said that had he of known about this hatless man being involved in the shooting and him saying on TV that he had seen a hatless cop right after the assassination - that he would not have given the interview. In other words he must have felt betrayed although the Turner people may not have known about the hatless cop until Gordon told them about him earlier in the day while out on the knoll.

And while it is true that one can say that there being a man in a service uniiform on the knoll in Moorman's Polaroid doesn't mean it was Gordon - one has to reconcile how Gordon knew certain details if it had not actually been him in the Badge Man images. He got the uniform right - the timing of the shot coming passed him right - he got the correct side of his head for the shot happening on - he got it right about two individuals in dark clothing being on the scene immediately after the shooting among several other details, as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Bill...you are correct in nearly every respect. However, you could not have

known about Jim Marrs interviewing him in the mid-80s. Also, Gary Mack interviewed

him BY PHONE several times. His story was always consistent. And you are right

about him thinking that the Turner interview PUT HIM IN DANGER.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Thanks, Bill...you are correct in nearly every respect. However, you could not have

known about Jim Marrs interviewing him in the mid-80s. Also, Gary Mack interviewed

him BY PHONE several times. His story was always consistent. And you are right

about him thinking that the Turner interview PUT HIM IN DANGER.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I knew Marrs wrote about Arnold in his book "Crossfire:The Plot to Kill Kennedy" and that Gary Mack had spoken to Gordon, but I thought those were done at the time of the MWKK series was interviewing Gordon as well. Did Marrs actually talk to Gordon before Turners people did?

Bill

[Jack White]

I now recall details of some of Gary Mack's phone interviews with Arnold

which are relevant. Without telling him that we "had a photo of him", Gary

asked him what he was wearing that day. "MY SUMMER KHAKIS" was his

answer. Gary asked if he had on a hat. His answer was "MY KHAKI OVERSEAS

CLOTH CAP WITH A LITTLE GOLD MEDALLION". Gary did not tell him that

was exactly what we had determined was shown in Moorman.

Jack

Edited December 21, 2004 by Jack White