A few photodigitally enhanced Badgeman photos

[Bill Miller]

This IS exactly what Yarborough said, "I thought he was an infantryman" & because of what he did, not how he looked.

So Golz has no record of these further details?

How queer!

Alan

Alan, your lack of effort in running down the facts of this matter does not reflect well upon you IMO. We have been through this before and I never heard where you have attempted to contact Golz or anyone else who might shed some additional light on the subject. Instead you just post off-the-wall rebuttals in much the same way the alterationist only attempt to cast suspicion about the Zapruder film. For instance, to say that Yarborough saw the Hester's fall to the ground and then somehow read the story about the serviceman standing above the wall in Golz story and confused the two is absurd and really not worth addressing. Yarborough knew who Golz was talking about and the two corresponded back and forth several times about Gordon. I remember touching with Golz on the subject of a select few people who believed that Yarborough may have seen the Newman's or Chism's and confused them with the person in his article and I cannot quote Earl at this late date, but I can tell you that his position was that such a thing was utter nonsense.

About Golz notes ... I asked him about his correspondances with Yarborough and his notes and as I recall, Earl said that he had donated them somewhere, but I just cannot remember to whom that was. Seems like it may have been a library or univerity in the state of Texas. Maybe Gary Mack at the 6th Floor Museum can be of some assistance if you wish to learn more about them. I can tell from your responses that you have never sought to contact Golz and I have the impression that you don't seek a lot of information from Gary Mack. I can only pass along what information I obtained when I sought these sources out and because Golz didn't have his notes to hand over to me doesn't mean a hell of a lot IMO. Earl cited from memory, but we went over the same things several times from several angles and I am completely satisfied that he was being truthful.

I wish you luck with your "arm chair research".

Bill Miller

JFK assasination researcher/investigator

Edited March 7, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

..... to say that Yarborough saw the Hester's fall to the ground and then somehow read the story about the serviceman standing above the wall in Golz story and confused the two is absurd and really not worth addressing. Yarborough knew who Golz was talking about and the two corresponded back and forth several times about Gordon. I remember touching with Golz on the subject of a select few people who believed that Yarborough may have seen the Newman's or Chism's and confused them with the person in his article and I cannot quote Earl at this late date, but I can tell you that his position was that such a thing was utter nonsense.

Golz's first article on Arnold never mentioned anything about him being behind "a wall" nor did it mention anything about this "witness" not remembering where he was stood that afternoon(which became clear when he turned up for the filming of "TMWKK" & had to be purposfully positioned in that golden area).

Golz never really knew where the man stood because Arnold couldn't tell him, all the article says is that he was hidden from view in the assassination photos because he was in the shadows of a tree.

I get the impression from the piece that this was Golz's own idea because he could not think of any other way this guy could be telling the truth & what do you know? The photo that accomanies the article has a snap of Arnold under the shadow of a tree.

Coincidence to you but not to me.

If you had seen any item that shows either Golz, Yarborough or Arnold talking about "this witness" ever being behind that wall prior to the filming of "TMWKK" you would have produced it already.

It was Mack, White & then Turner who put him up there & this was soley based upon the "figure" in the blow-ups.

Okay yes, I have not even seen the second, follow-up article that Golz wrote, let alone seen any of the notes on his conversations with Yarborough but I am more than confident you will find that my statements in the above paragraph panning out as true.

How can I be so sure?

Easy!

If Arnold had ever said he was filming where we see him in "TMWKK" before a likeness of him was found in Moorman5 then we would never hear the end of it & even I as a critic of his, would be greatly impressed.

The fact is, he never did say he was behind the wall up there & the only "utter nonsense" here, is you suggesting he ever did prior to the discovery in the blow-ups.

What I think happened is, Yarborough read the article & picked up on the serviceman falling to the ground part alone.

He had probably litle memory of the layout of the Plaza & the details of who stood where would not of occured to him.

He was probably just excited at hearing a story of something like what he saw.

He contacted Golz to tell him "maybe this was the same guy?".

Golz grabbed this "confirmation" & ran with it.

I am pretty sure this will be evident in the way the follow-up article is worded.

About Golz notes ... I asked him about his correspondances with Yarborough and his notes and as I recall, Earl said that he had donated them somewhere, but I just cannot remember to whom that was. Seems like it may have been a library or univerity in the state of Texas. Maybe Gary Mack at the 6th Floor Museum can be of some assistance if you wish to learn more about them. I can tell from your responses that you have never sought to contact Golz and I have the impression that you don't seek a lot of information from Gary Mack. I can only pass along what information I obtained when I sought these sources out and because Golz didn't have his notes to hand over to me doesn't mean a hell of a lot IMO. Earl cited from memory, but we went over the same things several times from several angles and I am completely satisfied that he was being truthful.

Golz wrote the original article & you are Arnolds biggest supporter.

Why would anyone look for another opinion? I wonder.

So you are saying that you remember Golz telling you that, from his memory of his notes, Yarbourough talked to him about seeing a serviceman, in uniform, not only standing above the wall but also diving away at the sound of a shot?

Well okay then, first question.

Did Golz ever put this in print or even in his notes?

Your not sure right?

Secondly, if Yarborough really did say what you suggest, don't you think it would of been only right to tell Arnold of this?

As was made clear to both you & I last year, at the time of the "TMWKK" filming, Arnold was clueless as to where he stood & was only positioned where we see him because of Jacks interpretation of the shapes above the wall.

Yarbourough was brought out in support of Arnold in "TMWKK" but if you liten closely & know where he was positioned on Elm St, it is obvious he was talking about someone to his right, on the grass most probably & IMO its Mr. Hester who caught his eye.

Mr.H ended up about 15' from the bench he & his wife were near & the are very close to "a wall", the pegola wall.

You can't change my opinion on this with heresay alone.

Alan

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Thanks to Ed for jpegs on Badgeman.

Thx, Ed. You're a gentleman.

EBC

Edited March 9, 2006 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Bill Grote]

This is from Jack's image. Just fiddled with the contrast a bit. You should be able to make out the eyes and the "badge"

[Bill Miller]

Golz wrote the original article & you are Arnolds biggest supporter.

Why would anyone look for another opinion? I wonder.

Opinions should be based on facts and what you constantly suggest is biased speculation absent of any attempt to learn the facts.

So you are saying that you remember Golz telling you that, from his memory of his notes, Yarbourough talked to him about seeing a serviceman, in uniform, not only standing above the wall but also diving away at the sound of a shot?

Golz told me what he recalled specifically while talking to Gordon Arnold.

Well okay then, first question.

Did Golz ever put this in print or even in his notes?

Your not sure right?

I have not seen Earl's notes, nor did I ask him if he had them in front of him when we spoke. In fact, I think I already stated that Earl said he had donated his notes to a university or something. Earl appeared to recall his conversations with Gordon quite well. Earl did not come across as someone who was merely guessing or searching for an answer.

Secondly, if Yarborough really did say what you suggest, don't you think it would of been only right to tell Arnold of this?

I think Yarborough was mentioned in a follow-up article that Golz wrote - wasn't he?

As was made clear to both you & I last year, at the time of the "TMWKK" filming, Arnold was clueless as to where he stood & was only positioned where we see him because of Jacks interpretation of the shapes above the wall.

I question the accuracy of your interpretation of the facts. I believe that Gordon wasn't sure of the exact spot where he stood .... not the general location. It also seems that I was told that Gordon was not positioned anywhere by Turner or his people.

Yarbourough was brought out in support of Arnold in "TMWKK" but if you liten closely & know where he was positioned on Elm St, it is obvious he was talking about someone to his right, on the grass most probably & IMO its Mr. Hester who caught his eye.

Mr.H ended up about 15' from the bench he & his wife were near & the are very close to "a wall", the pegola wall.

Yarborough's car was actually just passed the shade spot cast on the street in the Willis photo when JFK was shot in the head. Ralph's car was angled in a SW direction, thus the south corner of the wall was to his right front. More importantly is that Ralph called Golz after reading Earl's article and Yarborough knew that Earl had written about a young service man on leave. Your thinking that Yarborough must have been talking about the Hester's is comical and reflects well on the unreliablity of 'arm chair researching'. Not only did Earl make it clear that researchers could not find Arnold for years while looking over the assassination images because Gordon told him of falling to the ground, thus being hidden out of sight above the knoll, but Yarborough was quite clear about the man he seen diving to the wall like an old-time flying takle. The Hester's are seen in several assassination images and they were nowhere close to the wall that Golz and Yarborough were talking about. When someone like yourself misses these kinds of pieces of the evidence ... there is no use in trying to convince them of anything IMO.

Bill

Edited March 9, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I contacted Gary Mack today for some additional information on Yarborough and Arnold. This is some of what he said to me ....

"Yarborough told Golz, as he reported in the News on December 31, 1978, "Immediately on the firing of the first shot I saw the man you interviewed throw himself on the ground. He was down within a second of the time the shot was fired and I thought to myself, 'There's a combat veteran who knows how to act when weapons start firing.'" Yarborough knew Golz had written about a man up on the grassy knoll."

"Whether Yarborough thought the guy was a soldier based on his movements or upon his clothing, or both, is of little significance. He saw a man up on the knoll drop to the ground, not a man with a family next to him (Newman) and not a guy on the south side of Elm which, from his location, would have been partially or completely obstructed from Yarborough's view."

"If one suggests Arnold made up his story, one must ask, For what purpose? He sought no further interviews or notoriety. He turned down other interview requests. He refused to accept even a token payment for his appearance on TMWKK. And he declined additional interviews after the show appeared."

Edited March 10, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ed O'Hagan]

This is from Jack's image. Just fiddled with the contrast a bit. You should be able to make out the eyes and the "badge"

Might a closer look at the attached enlargement of the bottom right corner of the picture not then convince one of the depiction of both the 'badge' and the 'shoulder patch'? However, supposing what is being depicted is the lens of a camera ( the 'badge') and the exposed left wrist/watch of a cameraman (the ' shoulder patch'), is it then possible to discern two hands holding a camera ... and perhaps resting on top of a pointed fence?

[Bill Miller]

Might a closer look at the attached enlargement of the bottom right corner of the picture not then convince one of the depiction of both the 'badge' and the 'shoulder patch'? However, supposing what is being depicted is the lens of a camera ( the 'badge') and the exposed left wrist/watch of a cameraman (the ' shoulder patch'), is it then possible to discern two hands holding a camera ... and perhaps resting on top of a pointed fence?

Ed, I notice that you tend to see a lot of cops with cameras in many of the assassination photos ... can you explain why if someone wanted to keep a low profile while filming the assassination that they would use cops holding cameras? I mean, it seems that would stick out as odd to most observers.

Bill

[Bill Grote]

I agree that it appears to be a picket fence on the bottom. Here's a version with color added in Photoshop.

[Bill Miller]

I agree that it appears to be a picket fence on the bottom. Here's a version with color added in Photoshop.

You are right and that is why some of us know that Badge Man was not at the wall, but behind the fence and behind Gordon Arnold ... and not just behind Arnold, but behind and over his left shoulder. Now isn't it funny how Arnold claimed to have a shot come not over his right shoulder, but his left shoulder. My experience with Badge Man/Arnold critics has been that they do not seem to consider all the evidence as a whole ... at least for those who are capable of understanding it. You would be surprised just how many people have stated Bade Man is at the wall because they didn't bother to actually look at the photo in enough detail to see what you were able to point out.

Bill

[Nancy Eldreth]

Next, they will have it as James Files for real?

Just kidding...............

Files was never at the fence, for real. But who knows anymore.

Yes, it does look like a fence so why do they in some of the documentary accounts show the

badgeman to be at the wall?

This gets more confusing all the time.

[Alan Healy]

Opinions should be based on facts and what you constantly suggest is biased speculation absent of any attempt to learn the facts.

Calling me biased here is somewhat of an honour. I had always thought you had the monopoly on that title when it came to the Arnold myth.

There are no hard facts to support Arnold, I have learnt that much. All we have is "circumstantial" evidence, so opinions & speculation are quite valid(as much of your work on this topic clearly illustrates) & I am still not convinced of his presence on the knoll that afternoon, far from it.

You taking Golz's word for something that I have seen no other evidence for & then spouting it as fact, does not stop me from wanting confirmation.

Golz told me what he recalled specifically while talking to Gordon Arnold.

I was after specific quotes from Yarborough(not Arnold) because what I have heard & read so far leads me to the conclusion that Ralph got mixed up & never once specifically pointed to the wall where we see BDM.

I have not seen Earl's notes, nor did I ask him if he had them in front of him when we spoke. In fact, I think I already stated that Earl said he had donated his notes to a university or something. Earl appeared to recall his conversations with Gordon quite well. Earl did not come across as someone who was merely guessing or searching for an answer.

I have doubts that Golz looked at this comfirmation from Yarborough as critically as he should have.

If it is Golz's opinion that the senator was referring to the area where BDM stood then you would expect there to be something in either his notes or his articles that would confirm this.

I think Yarborough was mentioned in a follow-up article that Golz wrote - wasn't he?

You think? You mean you haven't read the follow-up either?

If you do have it, then why not quote from it & tell us exactly how we can tell Yarborough was talking about a man behind the wall atop the steps & not the grassy area in front of the pergola.

I question the accuracy of your interpretation of the facts. I believe that Gordon wasn't sure of the exact spot where he stood .... not the general location. It also seems that I was told that Gordon was not positioned anywhere by Turner or his people.

"It also seems that I was told"??

You mean you don't remember? Is that what you meant to say?

Listen, I am not concerned about the general area, Arnold already stood in "the general area" for the photo that accompanied Golz's first article.

What he, Golz & Yarborough never did is mention the man ever being behind that wall, or near/on the path, not even near it. Yet that is cleary where he is now considered to have been by his supporters only because of your belief in Jack's interpritation of the Moorman blow-ups.

What you have spouted is only a rumour as far as I'm concerned. You have shown nothing to support your claim that Yarborough mentioned seeing a guy over this specific wall wearing a uniform.

If you ever get a chance to read Golz's notes & find something to back this claim up, I will be genuinly astounded.

Once again, I am saying that the idea that Yarborough ever pointed to the wall infront of the stockade fence & mentioned seeing a man in uniform there, is ridiculous.

Yes, it is speculation but it's informed, since I have never seen anything but rumours & guesswork to support these thoughts.

FWIW, Gary told us last year, that that's exactly what did happen.

Nigel Turner positioned Arnold to line up with "the figure" in the blow-ups.

Why are you having trouble taking this in?

All Arnold remembered about his placement was standing about three feet from the fence & this was also repeated by him in an interview after the filming of"TMWKK", so his "positioning" that day by Turner had little effect on what he said later.

Yarborough's car was actually just passed the shade spot cast on the street in the Willis photo when JFK was shot in the head. Ralph's car was angled in a SW direction, thus the south corner of the wall was to his right front.

Yarborough said his eye was attracted to the right, not in front.

To his right was the grassy area & dozens of unknown witnesses lining the street, anyone of these could have dived out the way & caught his eye.

It's very clear in "TMWKK" that he was talking about someone moving to his right, he claimed they jumped about ten feet & landed against a wall, once again to his right, not up infront somewhere.

More importantly is that Ralph called Golz after reading Earl's article and Yarborough knew that Earl had written about a young service man on leave. Your thinking that Yarborough must have been talking about the Hester's is comical and reflects well on the unreliablity of 'arm chair researching'. Not only did Earl make it clear that researchers could not find Arnold for years while looking over the assassination images because Gordon told him of falling to the ground, thus being hidden out of sight above the knoll, but Yarborough was quite clear about the man he seen diving to the wall like an old-time flying takle. The Hester's are seen in several assassination images and they were nowhere close to the wall that Golz and Yarborough were talking about. When someone like yourself misses these kinds of pieces of the evidence ... there is no use in trying to convince them of anything IMO.

Golz suggested Arnold was "hidden in the shadow of a tree" no mention of him diving behind or near a wall, ever.

Your use the word "evidence" but where is the evidence that told you "Yarborough knew where he was talking about"?

Please post, that's all I'm after.

Alan

[Bill Miller]

"Calling me biased here is somewhat of an honour. I had always thought you had the monopoly on that title when it came to the Arnold myth."

Alan, I am not going to keep replying to someone who finds that not doing any real research is an honorable way to investigate a matter as important as JFK's assassination. Let me repeat the differences between what I have done Vs. what you are doing ... I said, "Opinions should be based on facts and what you constantly suggest is biased speculation absent of any attempt to learn the facts." I don't think anyone could do a better job of not looking at the facts of this case if they were trying to avoid them altogether. What is even worse is that you seem to think that is something to be proud of. You are starting to remind me of a little kid who continually plays the child's game of asking "Why?" just to be yanking ones chain. There comes a point when one starts realizing that you are not being serious. I will explain why that is as I go through the repetitive meaningless remarks you once again have posted rather than attempting to contact someone who could better educate you on the facts.

"There are no hard facts to support Arnold, I have learnt that much. All we have is "circumstantial" evidence, so opinions & speculation are quite valid(as much of your work on this topic clearly illustrates) & I am still not convinced of his presence on the knoll that afternoon, far from it.

You taking Golz's word for something that I have seen no other evidence for & then spouting it as fact, does not stop me from wanting confirmation."

Below is a list of people who interviewed Arnold before TMWKK series interview. This information was obtained by my questioning Gary Mack on the subject. I will quote Gary below ...

Aug 1978 Howard Upchurch

Aug 1978 Earl Golz

May 1979 Anthony Summers

May 1979 Earl Golz

May 1982 Henry Hurt

Nov 1982 Gary Mack

Dec 1982 Gary Mack

Jan 1983 Gary Mack

??? 1985 Jim Marrs

Jul 1988 Gary Mack

Mack said, "There were probably others, but these are the ones I personally know of. Arnold was specific and consistent with all of us about the general area where he stood: the top of the hill a few feet in front of the fence, back in the shade, near one of the trees. He did not remember the exact spot, nor was he asked to stand in any specific location by Dallas Morning News photographer Jay Godwin. I do not know how much detail he offered to the others about where he stood, but I know what he told me."

Something else I learned from Gary Mack ... and that was when the first time anyone ever solicited from Arnold what he was wearing on the day of the assassination. This was important to know IMO and Golz had not asked Arnold that specific question. It has always been quite impressive to many investigators that Arnold was able to get his location on the knoll during the shooting accurate within reason, the position of the President at the moment of the shot coming past his ear, the exact shoulder that years later the Badge Man images would support a shot being fired over, Gordon's follow-up reaction after the shot was fired over his shoulder, the fact that there was later discovered to be two individuals in dark clothing near the spot where Arnold would have been on the ground, but more importantly I find that Arnold described to Gary Mack the clothing that he wore on the day of the assassination as he stood over the knoll. Yes, Gary Mack asked Arnold that all important question well before TMWKK series was ever filmed. In 1982, Gordon told Mack that he was wearing his 'tans". Mack not knowing what that meant had then asked Gordon for clarification and Gordon told Gary that this was the uniform he wore. I believe Henry Hurt was told by Arnold in May of 1982 that he had wore his military uniform that day, but I think it was Mack six months later who got Gordon to be a bit more specific about his clothing. Gordon also mentioned that he also wore what he called his "cunt cap". Another name for such a cap is called a "garrison cap". Is it not odd that not only had Arnold gotten so many details correct in his recounting of his experience during and after the shooting, but he also described wearing clothing that would not be photographically validated until the Badge Man work by White and Mack's was aired on the Turner series. Until that time Arnold had not been shown the Badge Man images that had been discovered.

Something else that Gary Mack points out that is worth consideration even to those arm chair researchers like yourself. Gary said ....

"If one suggests Arnold made up his story, one must ask, For what purpose? He sought no further interviews or notoriety. He turned down other interview requests. He refused to accept even a token payment for his appearance on TMWKK. And he declined additional interviews after the show appeared.

At the time of his first interview with Arnold, Golz looked into the man's reputation and contacted several of his coworkers. Arnold passed every test Earl could think of."

"I was after specific quotes from Yarborough(not Arnold) because what I have heard & read so far leads me to the conclusion that Ralph got mixed up & never once specifically pointed to the wall where we see BDM."

What you have read so far???? Yarborough wasn't mixed up in 1978. Yarborough wasn't mixed up when Turner's people interviewed him in 1988. Only the aging Yarborough not long before his death had gotten confused about the question Murph put to him. As has been said previously, there is a difference in when Yarborough recognized the first shot Vs. what he later found out as to when the shooting actually had started. I have offered Yarborough's smiling face in the Altgens #6 photo as proof of Ralph's not being aware of the assassination at that point in time. Altgens #6 equates to Z255. Your failing to accept what Golz said in his article and why Yarborough contacted him is par for your bias in pretending to ignore the evidence. You were all too willing to accept the sunspot on the BDM as gun smoke without giving any consideration as to when Betzner took his photograph, but unwilling to understand what everyone else seems to follow concerning Yarborough talking about the man above the knoll at the wall. Instead, I have heard it referenced by one person that Yarborough must have seen the Bill Newman falling to the ground. Not only would Newman be hidden by the line of people along the curb, but Yarborough specifically said in the Turner interview that the man dove to the wall. The same applies to Charles Hester. With people standing along the curb and Yarborough's head not 4' above the pavement - the Senator could not have possibly seen Hester and surely not seen Hester diving like a flying tackle to the wall. Yet you miss those little details. This is one of the reasons why replying to your post is starting to look like a waste of time because you cannot discuss the evidence when all you have chosen to do is armchair research. You have sought little information from Mack, you have not spoken to Golz, you have made silly mistakes in your photo interpretations by not getting the basic facts tied down to when the shooting started compared to when the photos were taken, and you have failed miserably in understanding the information concerning Arnold and Yarborough by not going beyond the few sentences offered in Golz articles and what was said by Yarborough in TMWKK.

"I have doubts that Golz looked at this comfirmation from Yarborough as critically as he should have.

If it is Golz's opinion that the senator was referring to the area where BDM stood then you would expect there to be something in either his notes or his articles that would confirm this."

Your comments are unfounded and seem really silly. Those who know Golz say that he is thorough and that is certainly the impression I got from talking to him. And it seems you need to be reminded once again ... Golz wrote about the service man above the knoll and it was Yarborough who sought Golz out to confirm Arnold being there after reading Earl's article. There is no 'Golz opinion' involved here for it was Yarborough who came to Earl to offer confirmation for what Gordon had said to Earl. Again, this is a problem when armchair researching for you are confusing important events that tell the story. Golz spoke to Arnold on several occasions and did the same with Yarborough and yet he only offers a few select sentences in his articles concerning each. To assert that there was nothing else said between these parties other than what was written in the newspaper or to imply what should or should not have been important to put into the articles by Earl is doing so without having a clue to what the purpose was for writing the articles in the first place.

"You think? You mean you haven't read the follow-up either?

If you do have it, then why not quote from it & tell us exactly how we can tell Yarborough was talking about a man behind the wall atop the steps & not the grassy area in front of the pergola."

Someone IM'd me asking why it is that you are doing nothing more than going around in circles on this subject. I believe the articles have been posted on Lancer and can be found in their archives. Certainly you participated in those threads and saved the articles yourself - correct? Contact Mack at the 6th floor and ask him to read the articles to you for I seem to recall him going over them with me before, but of course that would mean that you would actually have to take a sincere step forward in wanting to learn something about this matter.

""It also seems that I was told"??

You mean you don't remember? Is that what you meant to say?

Listen, I am not concerned about the general area, Arnold already stood in "the general area" for the photo that accompanied Golz's first article.

What he, Golz & Yarborough never did is mention the man ever being behind that wall, or near/on the path, not even near it. Yet that is cleary where he is now considered to have been by his supporters only because of your belief in Jack's interpritation of the Moorman blow-ups."

So you know - Jay Godwin took the photo that you speak of and Jay told me that he just had Arnold stand out where he could be seen near the knoll for a photo that would be included in Earl's article. Jay said there was no attempt to recreate Arnold's exact location when he took Gordon's photo. Of course I am only repeating once again what you have been told before.

Golz made a reference in his article that researchers had pored over the assassination photos and films looking for evidence of someone being above the knoll and had not found this person. Earl went on to explain how Gordon went to the ground when the shooting occurred and alluded to this being a reason why researchers couldn't find Arnold in any of the post assassination images. Yarborough on the other hand mentioned Gordon diving to the wall. Ralph knew that Golz spoke of a service man above the knoll - Ralph was interviewed by Turner's people about Arnold and once again repeated what he had seen. To assert that Yarborough was talking about someone along the curb or sitting on a bench as Hester was doing is just plain absurd IMO. In fact, I would question the investigative ability of anyone who was not able to follow the evidence in such a way to derive at the conclusion you have proposed.

"What you have spouted is only a rumour as far as I'm concerned. You have shown nothing to support your claim that Yarborough mentioned seeing a guy over this specific wall wearing a uniform.

If you ever get a chance to read Golz's notes & find something to back this claim up, I will be genuinly astounded."

If you ever lifted a finger to actually do some real digging into this subject - I'd be astounded! Golz mentioned the man above the wall on the knoll. Yarborough confirmed this individual to Golz and then mentioned seeing this man dive to the wall in the Turner interview. IMO, your inability to follow these points is shameful if you are purposely not seeing the connection and inept as an investigator if you are sincere in not seeing it.

"FWIW, Gary told us last year, that that's exactly what did happen.

Nigel Turner positioned Arnold to line up with "the figure" in the blow-ups.

Why are you having trouble taking this in?"

Gordon didn't know the exact location as I said. Turner wanted to see him over the South wall from Moorman's location for obvious reasons that Gordon would later discover. So having Gordon move a step or so one way or the other is a moot point for I had to do the same with my test subjects when I shot my Moorman recreation photo as well. You appear to be implying that Arnold had not a clue as to where he was on the entire knoll and had to be led over to the top of the walkway and that is nonsense.

"Yarborough said his eye was attracted to the right, not in front.

To his right was the grassy area & dozens of unknown witnesses lining the street, anyone of these could have dived out the way & caught his eye.

It's very clear in "TMWKK" that he was talking about someone moving to his right, he claimed they jumped about ten feet & landed against a wall, once again to his right, not up infront somewhere."

I again remind you that Golz and Turner went into great depth with their witnesses and Yarborough knew exactly what these interviewers were saying about Arnold and where he was located. I know of no other researcher who has ever taken such a preposterous position like that you have offered here. But then again I try to keep in mind how it was you who claimed the BDM had smoke lingering in the air in front of him while standing in front of so many witnesses and SS agents and was never challenged. That this was your position and how I had to remind you that Betzner had taken his photo "BEFORE" the first shot was ever fired. So your misinterpretation of the evidence is not all that shocking to me at this point.

"Golz suggested Arnold was "hidden in the shadow of a tree" no mention of him diving behind or near a wall, ever.

Your use the word "evidence" but where is the evidence that told you "Yarborough knew where he was talking about"?

Please post, that's all I'm after."

Yes, Earl suggested that Arnold was hidden in the shadow of a tree ... in fact this is what the Moorman's photo shows us through White and Mack's work. Earl also went on to mention Arnold going to the ground when the shot came past Gordon's ear. This is where Yarborough comes in and mentions seeing this man dive to the wall. These are excerpts from two witnesses who when put together they offer a picture of what transpired above the wall. 10 years later when Turner put his series together - Yarborough once again offered support for Arnold being above the wall. Not once is Yarborough on record saying that Turner misrepresented what Ralph had witnessed and where the individual was when he witnessed him diving to the ground. Your position is not only weak, but has shown an astounding inability to follow the evidence through these various sources.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Edited March 16, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Miller's mention of Gary Mack's mention of researcher Howard Upchurch

reminds me of the merest CHANCE that Arnold's story came to light.

The SHY Arnold certainly DID NOT COME FORTH with it, but was very

reluctant to tell his story. I know, because I heard it first hand, not

from Golz or Golz's story. I heard it long before it became public...

from Howard Upchurch and his postman...in a meeting at my office

on a Saturday morning. We spent half a day looking through photos

trying to find Arnold.

Howard Upchurch's postman (whose name eludes me as I write; I

may have it somewhere) happened to be on jury duty. While sitting

in the jury venire room, the postman mentioned his studies of the

JFK assassination. Another jury venireman said "I WAS THERE THAT

DAY." The postman was amazed and started asking questions, because

the man was not on any known list of witnesses. He found that Arnold

was not known to any official agencies because he was in the Army,

and on November 23 he had to leave for a duty post in Alaska, and was

never questioned by anyone. He did not tell his story to anyone but

his family, and was out of the country for several years before returning

to Dallas. By then nobody was interested in his story. But in the jury

room, by mere chance, he happened to mention it to Howard's postman.

He told the postman the SAME EXACT STORY WHICH HE REPEATED TO

GOLZ AND NIGEL TURNER. His story has never varied from the first

time I heard it. The postman told Upchurch about Arnold and Upchurch

told Golz and others, including me. That is how the story came to light.

Initially, most researchers were very dubious, SINCE NO DEALEY PLAZA

PHOTOS showed any person standing where Arnold said he stood. His

story always included the phrase about a bullet whizzing by his left

ear. I was one of the doubters till I found an image in Moorman which

seemed to fit all aspects of Arnold's story. Gary Mack agreed with my

find, and INTERVIEWED ARNOLD EXTENSIVELY. He told Gary many things

not included in Earl's story. He asked whether Arnold was wearing anything

on his head. Without ever having seen my enlargement, GA told Gary he

was wearing his KHAKI OVERSEAS CLOTH CAP WITH A SMALL GOLD

INSIGNIA on it. That is what is seen in Moorman.

Another detail which has never changed in any version of the Arnold

tale is that the man who took his camera from him HAD DIRTY FINGERNAILS.

That is a little detail that to me adds authenticity. He was not clever enough

to make up such an irrelevant bit of needless detail.

That Saturday morning when Upchurch, the postman and I tried in

vain to find GA in photos did not stop the story from being published.

Upchurch told Golz that no known photos he had studied could confirm

the story, but Golz was convinced it was important enough to pursue.

Lack of photographic confirmation possibly could be explained because

Arnold "hit the ground" at the sound of a shot, and could not be seen.

From being an initial skeptic, I became a total believer in Gordon's story.

If you were not there, I can understand skepticism...because I too

was a skeptic till I learned the full story.

Jack

Edited March 16, 2006 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Miller's mention of Gary Mack's mention of researcher Howard Upchurch

reminds me of the merest CHANCE that Arnold's story came to light.

The SHY Arnold certainly DID NOT COME FORTH with it, but was very

reluctant to tell his story. I know, because I heard it first hand, not

from Golz or Golz's story. I heard it long before it became public...

from Howard Upchurch and his postman...in a meeting at my office

on a Saturday morning. We spent half a day looking through photos

trying to find Arnold.

Howard Upchurch's postman (whose name eludes me as I write; I

may have it somewhere) happened to be on jury duty. While sitting

in the jury venire room, the postman mentioned his studies of the

JFK assassination. Another jury venireman said "I WAS THERE THAT

DAY." The postman was amazed and started asking questions, because

the man was not on any known list of witnesses. He found that Arnold

was not known to any official agencies because he was in the Army,

and on November 23 he had to leave for a duty post in Alaska, and was

never questioned by anyone. He did not tell his story to anyone but

his family, and was out of the country for several years before returning

to Dallas. By then nobody was interested in his story. But in the jury

room, by mere chance, he happened to mention it to Howard's postman.

He told the postman the SAME EXACT STORY WHICH HE REPEATED TO

GOLZ AND NIGEL TURNER. His story has never varied from the first

time I heard it. The postman told Upchurch about Arnold and Upchurch

told Golz and others, including me. That is how the story came to light.

Initially, most researchers were very dubious, SINCE NO DEALEY PLAZA

PHOTOS showed any person standing where Arnold said he stood. His

story always included the phrase about a bullet whizzing by his left

ear. I was one of the doubters till I found an image in Moorman which

seemed to fit all aspects of Arnold's story. Gary Mack agreed with my

find, and INTERVIEWED ARNOLD EXTENSIVELY. He told Gary many things

not included in Earl's story. He asked whether Arnold was wearing anything

on his head. Without ever having seen my enlargement, GA told Gary he

was wearing his KHAKI OVERSEAS CLOTH CAP WITH A SMALL GOLD

INSIGNIA on it. That is what is seen in Moorman.

Another detail which has never changed in any version of the Arnold

tale is that the man who took his camera from him HAD DIRTY FINGERNAILS.

That is a little detail that to me adds authenticity. He was not clever enough

to make up such an irrelevant bit of needless detail.

That Saturday morning when Upchurch, the postman and I tried in

vain to find GA in photos did not stop the story from being published.

Upchurch told Golz that no known photos he had studied could confirm

the story, but Golz was convinced it was important enough to pursue.

Lack of photographic confirmation possibly could be explained because

Arnold "hit the ground" at the sound of a shot, and could not be seen.

From being an initial skeptic, I became a total believer in Gordon's story.

If you were not there, I can understand skepticism...because I too

was a skeptic till I learned the full story.

Jack

Gary Mack likely remembers the name of Upchurch's postman.

We attended a gathering at his Grand Prairie apartment once.

I cannot find a record of his name. I seem to remember that his

first name may have been Dick.

Edited March 16, 2006 by Jack White