A few photodigitally enhanced Badgeman photos

[Alan Healy]

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.

Your full of it & you calling me biased on this topic with your track record would be hilarious if I didn't take this subject seriously. All it does is show you up for the hypocrite you are.

As for facts, you have none & I can't ignore them when there aren't any.

Arnold claims he was on the knoll that day & that is still the only fact we have.

Everything else is a matter of opinion & your opinion on how I view this topic is of little value to me but yanks all the same.

The only source we have of Yarborough ever relating to a man in uniform or this specific wall on the knoll is from you, his biggest supporter, the same guy who twists everything he can get his hands on to point towards Arnold being honest.

You claim that, after a conversation with him, that it is Golz's opinion that this was exactly what Yarborough said.

Now you are suggesting to me that just because Golz & Turner never mentioned this, it doesn't mean it never happened.

What kind of a journalist leaves out details like this from his work?

You really expect me to believe that Yarborough may of told both Turner & Golz that the guy he saw was in a uniform above the wall but they both decided that it wasn't important enough to include in their work?

And I'm the joker right?

So the bottom line is, there is no support for Golz's opinion available as yet.

Thanks for making that clear to me, in your own special way.

Most Arnold supporters agree that neither Golz or Yarborough ever mentioned a uniform.

As far as you are concerned, it seems, they're all idiots for not thinking the way you do.

Neither can I get anything but opinions on Yarboroughs exact placing of this guy he claims to have seen diving for cover.

It seems as though Yarborough & Golz never pinned it down.

"..to my right" points to the area where the Hesters were but yes lots of others dove for cover too & probably a lot of others who weren't caught on any film.

We even have you claiming that the one time Yarborough was pinned down on this positioning by an interviewer, that he must have been losing his marbles because Ralph said that the very idea that he could of seen someone behind the wall on the knoll from his position in the motorcade was crazy!

Maybe you'd like to explain your position on this for people like me who haven't looked at this interview before?

.....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.

......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.

So on the one hand we have you claiming that Golz left out important references to this guys clothing & specific position for no apparent reason & on the other we have you suggesting he was always thorough.

Let's hope his notes reflect his thoroughness with Yarborough better than his article did, since it seems to mention nothing of these items that would have left future researchers in no doubt that it was Arnold he saw.

One thing you can be sure of if you know anything about Golz.

You should be careful about taking his word for on anything.

As you know Arnold only agreed to do the interview if his name was not mentioned in the article but according to Golz, when his editor refused to print the article without the witnesses details, Golz ran the story anyway with both his name & his place of work.

That's some kinda o' thorough.... hack!

There is no 'Golz opinion' involved....

You originally wrote that "it was Golz's opinion" that Yarborough refered to a man in uniform above the wall, so those are your words.

Someone IM'd me asking why it is that you are doing nothing more than going around in circles on this subject.

Tell them to show some cohunes & ask me directly, I'll give them a straight answer, which is something you seem to avoid doing at all costs.

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.

Well just incase you don't have it, I'll tell you.

There is no mention of the actual wall on the knoll or a uniform but you knew this already.

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.

Did you ask Jay if he even knew where Arnold claimed to have stood?

Did you keep a record of this conversation & are you willing to show it to us?

While your at it, can you quote word for word exactly what Golz said to you in relation to the wall & the uniform quotes from Yarborough?

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

Golz's original article suggests only that Arnold may of been hidden in the shadow of a tree all this time whilst on the ground but there is no evidence to support your claim that Yarbourough's diving man was anywhere near the area Arnold claims to be.

Only hearsay.

- 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.

Yarborough cleary refers to his "right" & that is all.

No uniform, no knoll, just "to my right".

To his right was a grassy area that many may consider the beginnings of the grassy knoll.

I keep hearing the phrase "Yarborough knew the article was referring to a man on the grassy knoll" but why do you automatically assume that Yarborough knew where that was?

Facts only please.

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.

Where & when did Golz ever mention a man above the wall? You are mixing fact with rumour again!

When did Yarborough ever pin-point the exact wall he was refering to except in the one later interview where you think Yarborough was losing it?

It's just speculation on your part, you see?

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.

Nonsense?

Gary told us he could not remember where he stood & Turner positioned him for the filming.

Are you now suggesting that Arnold attempted to find his spot before he was "correctly positioned"?

Don't hold back now, this is the time to tell us what you know of the matter.

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'm sorry but that's not good enough, I'm a sceptical so & so.

People who produce newspaper articles & television shows are usually nowhere near as exacting as what real reserchers are.

Sure, I know more gets said than what we see or read, a lot more but these people cannot be trusted to cover all the angles & they usually leave out the parts that they deem unimportant or items that conflict with what they are trying to achieve(a bit like you on this topic).

Unless one reads Golz's notes or Turner's transcripts you will never know for sure, if there is no mention of these items in there, you are screwed.

IMO Yarborough being on screen for so short a time in "TMWKK" is not a good sign, I'd prepare for the worst if I were you.

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.

Yarborough had a wall to his right, more than just a few people hit the dirt in this area.

I think the Ralph read Golz's article & assumed he had seen the this same man.

I think he was wrong to do so & I'm entitled to that opinion from the research that has been made available.

Alan

Dancer/Shaker

[Bill Miller]

Your full of it & you calling me biased on this topic with your track record would be hilarious if I didn't take this subject seriously. All it does is show you up for the hypocrite you are.

As for facts, you have none & I can't ignore them when there aren't any.

Yeh right ... you have yet in the past two years to post where you spent one thin dime to contact Golz and talk to him ... you are nothing more than an armchair researcher IMO. In fact as I have pointed out previously - you immediately took the position that the Black Dog Man had fired a shot at JFK from not 100 -150 feet away with numerous people and SS agents looking right at him without first learning what Betzner said about when he took his photograph in relation to the first shot. Your lingering smoke claim was in error from the beginning because you didn't bother to seek out the slightest facts about what you were talking about. Gordon's family and friends heard about his experience on the knoll from the very beginning - Gordon sought no fame - Gordon refused to even take money for his interview because of principle. Gordon mentioned certain things about what transpired on the knoll during and after the shooting that were never known photographically until many years later. Instead if telling us how he knew those things - you ignore them in the same half-assed way you started out thinking BDM was shooting at JFK. When I look back at how much you had gotten wrong in order to reach the conclusion that you had and despite all the added information that you have been given to date without wavering from your original position - I must clonclude that you are on a mission driven by bias or you are a very inept investigator who doesn't feel that he needs to contact sources to learn more about the subject before rendering an opinion. Either way, you are going to think what you like even if you have to close your eyes and plug your ears.

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.” Rene Dahinden, August 1999.

Arnold claims he was on the knoll that day & that is still the only fact we have.

Everything else is a matter of opinion & your opinion on how I view this topic is of little value to me but yanks all the same.

Actually there are two assassination image sources that support Arnold being where he said he was. Once agin you are in error because you didn't do a proper investigation.

The only source we have of Yarborough ever relating to a man in uniform or this specific wall on the knoll is from you, his biggest supporter, the same guy who twists everything he can get his hands on to point towards Arnold being honest.

You claim that, after a conversation with him, that it is Golz's opinion that this was exactly what Yarborough said.

Now you are suggesting to me that just because Golz & Turner never mentioned this, it doesn't mean it never happened.

What kind of a journalist leaves out details like this from his work?

You really expect me to believe that Yarborough may of told both Turner & Golz that the guy he saw was in a uniform above the wall but they both decided that it wasn't important enough to include in their work?

And I'm the joker right?

Why not stop being an armchair researcher and contact Golz, Turner, or Sue Winters and ask them what all Yarborough said to them and why they only offered a single sentence or so from all Ralph's interview time to be heard in their documentary?

Most Arnold supporters agree that neither Golz or Yarborough ever mentioned a uniform.

As far as you are concerned, it seems, they're all idiots for not thinking the way you do.

Your statement is not correct as usual. The supporters I know understand that Golz mentioned Arnold as the service man on the knoll and Yarborough mentioned he knew right away that the man he saw had already had his infantry training.

Neither can I get anything but opinions on Yarboroughs exact placing of this guy he claims to have seen diving for cover.

It seems as though Yarborough & Golz never pinned it down.

"..to my right" points to the area where the Hesters were but yes lots of others dove for cover too & probably a lot of others who weren't caught on any film.

You are the only person I have ever heard act so confused about something that is so simple. It almost sounds as if you think that Turner just took a remark Yarborough made about seeing the Hester's (Charles sitting on a bench) and edited it into the Arnold on the knoll piece as if to decieve the public. It is that kind of thinking that shows why armchair researching is not the best way to really learn about a subject.

We even have you claiming that the one time Yarborough was pinned down on this positioning by an interviewer, that he must have been losing his marbles because Ralph said that the very idea that he could of seen someone behind the wall on the knoll from his position in the motorcade was crazy!

Maybe you'd like to explain your position on this for people like me who haven't looked at this interview before?

I have already explained this. Do you know what Yarborough's mental state was just prior to his death? Let's see ... he wasn't confused about seeing someone in 1978 after reading Earl's article ... and he wasn't saying he could not have seen Arnold when Turner interviewed him for TMWKK series. So in an honest bit of armchair researching it is your position that Yarborough was incorrect all those years and got it right just before he died when Murph mentioned his where-a-bouts when the shooting started. My step-father is 85 years old and recollections he has told many times over the years are not as vivid to him today and many times he gets confused on certain details .... your inability to see these things is not suprising to me.

So on the one hand we have you claiming that Golz left out important references to this guys clothing & specific position for no apparent reason & on the other we have you suggesting he was always thorough.

Let's hope his notes reflect his thoroughness with Yarborough better than his article did, since it seems to mention nothing of these items that would have left future researchers in no doubt that it was Arnold he saw.

Again, you need to understand the purpose for Golz writing his article in the first place. I thought that Gary Mack had already went over this with you for I think Gary was a journalist at one time. After talking to Gary - contact Golz or Godwin ... speak to people who worked in those areas and let them tell you why so much is left out of a n ewspaper article like Earl wrote. Earl contacted a lot of people to find out of Gordon was a credible person, but there is no mention of this in the article. There is also no mention of Earl's source for finding out about Arnold in the first place. You seem to think that writing a newspapre article in like writing an autobiography or a book .... you are sadly mistaken.

One thing you can be sure of if you know anything about Golz.

You should be careful about taking his word for on anything.

I'll stop with your last remark ... just what do you know about Earl Golz and his credibility???

Bill Miller

JFK researcher/investigator

Edited March 17, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Yarborough cleary refers to his "right" & that is all.

No uniform, no knoll, just "to my right".

To his right was a grassy area that many may consider the beginnings of the grassy knoll.

I keep hearing the phrase "Yarborough knew the article was referring to a man on the grassy knoll" but why do you automatically assume that Yarborough knew where that was?

Facts only please.

Pretend to be dumb, Alan. Here is a message that Gary Mack sent to you that you must ignored ...

"Alan,

I knew Earl Golz in 1978 and spoke to him that August when his Gordon Arnold story appeared. There was a lot that was not in the finished article, for Earl had conducted a long interview with the man. Early usually recorded his calls and those tapes, and his notes, were given to the AARC in Washington. Contact Jim Lesar for access.

Earl also told me that August that the day the story ran, he got a phone call from Ralph Yarborough that he had seen the guy - Arnold - and could confirm that part of his story. Yarborough told Golz he had read the article and remembered it. So it was clear to Golz that Yarborough was referring to Arnold up on the hill.

Golz later wrote a follow-up story for the December 31, 1978 Dallas Morning News about several key witnesses whom the HSCA knew about but had not interviewed. Arnold was one of them. Golz contacted Yarborough, confirmed their earlier telephone conversation, and then wrote about the Senator's confirmation of having seen Arnold hit the ground.

Bill has quoted that paragraph accurately and it also appears in several books, including Hurt's. Yarborough did not say the man was in uniform. He said that, from his actions dropping down, that he figured he was a combat veteran.

I don't know about you, but anyone in the same circumstances would have hit the ground the same way, so there wasn't anything about the movement that said military to Yarborough. So there must have been something else, and that something may have been his uniform.

That, of course, is speculation. But it was very clear to Golz who Yarborough was speaking about, for the article about Arnold was the sole reason Yarborough decided to call him.

Any questions?

Gary Mack "

was located.

I'm sorry but that's not good enough, I'm a sceptical so & so.

People who produce newspaper articles & television shows are usually nowhere near as exacting as what real reserchers are.

Again, what do you know about it? Your sceptisism really showed when you hung onto that ridiculous BDM claim about smoke lingering in front of him in a photo that was taken before the shooting ever started.

Yarborough had a wall to his right, more than just a few people hit the dirt in this area.

I think the Ralph read Golz's article & assumed he had seen the this same man.

I think he was wrong to do so & I'm entitled to that opinion from the research that has been made available.

Alan

Dancer/Shaker

Yarborough's car is in the tree shadow when Altgens took his #6 photo. The FBI said the limo was moving 11" per Zframe. Z313 - Z255 = 58 frames. Is it not possible that Yarborough's car rolled 40+ feet after Altgens took his photograph? If the later it true, then would not Yarborough be looking to his right when he saw someone dive to the wall at the time of the kill shot to JFK?

Edited March 18, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Most Arnold supporters agree that neither Golz or Yarborough ever mentioned a uniform.

As far as you are concerned, it seems, they're all idiots for not thinking the way you do.

Your statement is not correct as usual. The supporters I know understand that Golz mentioned Arnold as the service man on the knoll and Yarborough mentioned he knew right away that the man he saw had already had his infantry training.

Who in their right mind could take that reply seriously?

Are you genuinely implying that people who get trained in certain areas are only allowed to use those skills whilst wearing their official uniforms?

Alan

Discjockey/Philosopher

[Bill Miller]

Who in their right mind could take that reply seriously?

Are you genuinely implying that people who get trained in certain areas are only allowed to use those skills whilst wearing their official uniforms?

Alan

Discjockey/Philosopher/armchair researcher

Malcomb Summers hit the ground and no one ever said he looked like he had his infantry training. The same about the Newman's and the Hester's. Whether Yarborough noticed a man in uniform is one thing had he not added his impression about the man's training, but to totally ignore or play dumb about how Yarborough got his impression and considering that there was someone in Moorman's photo that appears to have been in uniform ... it doesn't seem like a stretch to understand why Yarborough chose that analogy in describing why the man hit the ground.

Bill

Who in their right mind could take that reply seriously?

Are you genuinely implying that people who get trained in certain areas are only allowed to use those skills whilst wearing their official uniforms?

Alan

Discjockey/Philosopher/armchair researcher

Malcomb Summers hit the ground and no one ever said he looked like he had his infantry training. The same about the Newman's and the Hester's. Whether Yarborough noticed a man in uniform is one thing had he not added his impression about the man's training, but to totally ignore or play dumb about how Yarborough got his impression and considering that there was someone in Moorman's photo that appears to have been in uniform ... it doesn't seem like a stretch to understand why Yarborough chose that analogy he used in describing what he saw.

Bill

PS: Why not contact Nigel Turner or Sue Winters and ask them for more information concerning the interview they did with Yarborough. What's the worst that can happen .... you discover that the rest of your argument is destroyed?

[Alan Healy]

Who in their right mind could take that reply seriously?

Are you genuinely implying that people who get trained in certain areas are only allowed to use those skills whilst wearing their official uniforms?

Malcomb Summers hit the ground and no one ever said he looked like he had his infantry training. The same about the Newman's and the Hester's. Whether Yarborough noticed a man in uniform is one thing had he not added his impression about the man's training, but to totally ignore or play dumb about how Yarborough got his impression and considering that there was someone in Moorman's photo that appears to have been in uniform ... it doesn't seem like a stretch to understand why Yarborough chose that analogy he used in describing what he saw.

Bill

PS: Why not contact Nigel Turner or Sue Winters and ask them for more information concerning the interview they did with Yarborough. What's the worst that can happen .... you discover that the rest of your argument is destroyed?

Yarborough clearly states that it was the way they guy dove for cover that made him "think".

He "thought" he was an infantryman.

If he saw a man in a serviceman's uniform the word "think" would never enter into it.

This is what we call common sense.

So it was an impression he had & he mentioned this after he read an article, fifteen years later, about a serviceman diving for cover at the sound of a shot.

There is never any mention of a uniform nor the wall at the top of the knoll, no specifics at all in either the article or the documentary.

Those are the facts.

Everything else is opinion & just like like the figures above the wall in Moorman5, they're only a fact in your mind.

[Bill Miller]

Yarborough clearly states that it was the way they guy dove for cover that made him "think".

He "thought" he was an infantryman.

If he saw a man in a serviceman's uniform the word "think" would never enter into it.

This is what we call common sense.

You sure use the word "clearly" a lot .... and when one who knows the case sees how "unclear" you are on the facts, it becomes apparent that you are not qualified to offer an opinion on this subject. For instance, above you stated that it was the way Arnold dove for cover that made Yarborough think he was an infantry man, but that is not the case at all. Yarborough said Arnold dove to the wall like "a flying tackle", yet he didn't mention Arnold must have been a football player. To correct what you have stated ... it was the timing of Arnold hitting the ground immediately after the sound of a gunshot that caused Yarborough to make a reference to Gordon already having his military combat training.

"There is never any mention of a uniform nor the wall at the top of the knoll, no specifics at all in either the article or the documentary."

It is asinine IMO that you keep going back and referencing an article that mentioned only two or three very short sentences as if that was all that Golz learned from Arnold. People who know Golz and who have actually made the contacts instead of being an 'armchair researcher' like yourself have learned much more than what was referenced in the article. I specifically recall mentioning to Earl that there was one particular person who held onto the position that Earl had written all that he and Arnold discussed when he put together his article and Earl was surprised that someone would be so naive to think such a thing. To date you have attempted to argue against Arnold (rather poorly I might add) and said things about Golz's being unable to get the facts straight and yet you have not once posted where you actually went to the source to get the story first hand. Your 'I don't have to spend any energy to learn more about the facts that were not written about in the short DMN article' so you can avoid admitting you were in error reflects very badly about your sincerity in wanting to know the truth. The same can be said about what more you could learn by contacting Turner and/or Sue Winter about Yarborough's interview. If you are not going to spend any effort in contacting these sources, then one has to assume you are only interested in yanking chains in this matter.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Some additional information obtained through Gary Mack ... I know you are aware of this message, Alan.

"Golz mentioned Arnold BECAUSE he claimed to be a witness in an important location. Had there been any doubts, Earl would not have referred to him at all. As you'll recall, that August 1978 article was about Secret Service imposters, one of the many recurring stories of interest.

To repeat, Yarborough read Earl's August 1978 article - the one WITH the photo - and took the time to call Earl to confirm that he had seen a man up there throw himself upon the ground. Then in late December, Earl called Yarborough who stood by what he had said four months earlier. The article Earl wrote mentioned Yarborough's confirmation and the quotation Bill Miller has repeated is complete and accurate. The same quote appears in Henry Hurt's book, Reasonable Doubt, and probably in other sources, too.

I was aware of all this in 1978, for not only did I know Earl, but in September 1978 I drove him up to Ada, Oklahoma to view the Bronson film. Earl was the reporter who found Bronson and I brought along my slow motion movie projector. We discussed Arnold on the phone at the time and during that trip. There's no question that Earl was impressed with what Yarborough had told him."

Edited March 20, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Just to keep the record straight, Mrs. Turner's name is Sue WINTER.

Jack

[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

THIS JUST IN...CORRECTION FROM GARY MACK! GARY CHECKED

WITH HOWARD UPCHURCH, AND MY MEMORY LET ME DOWN. IT

WAS HOWARD HIMSELF, NOT HIS POSTMAN, WHO WAS THE

PERSON ON JURY DUTY, WHO FIRST HEARD ARNOLD'S STORY.

Howard's postman was involved with some other witness, I

guess. Othewise, the story is correct about Arnold telling his

story in a jury room. The record needs to be accurate!

Sorry for the faulty memory!

Jack

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

I wonder if Bill Scrote has done any more photo enhancements of the Badge Man?

Bill Scrote's Badgeman 'enhancement' was truly extraordinary.

Can we have some more Bill?

EBC

[Jack White]

I wonder if Bill Scrote has done any more photo enhancements of the Badge Man?

Bill Scrote's Badgeman 'enhancement' was truly extraordinary.

Can we have some more Bill?

EBC

Who is Bill Scrote and where are his "truly extraordinary enhancements" of Badgeman?

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Who is Bill Scrote and where are his "truly extraordinary enhancements" of Badgeman?

Jack

A web search didn't produce anything under that name.

Bill

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Who is Bill Scrote and where are his "truly extraordinary enhancements" of Badgeman?

Jack

A very good question, Jack.

God only knows who Bill Scrote might be but one has one's suspicions.

Is Bill Scrote someone we know ?

Nudge..nudge

EBC

[Bill Miller]

Who is Bill Scrote and where are his "truly extraordinary enhancements" of Badgeman?

Jack

A very good question, Jack.

God only knows who Bill Scrote might be but one has one's suspicions.

Is Bill Scrote someone we know ?

Nudge..nudge

EBC

EBC, you are the one who mentioned him in the first place .... don't you have any information on this person? Where did you hear about him before posting his name on this forum?

Bill

[Guest John Gillespie]

Thanks, Jack. That's become a classic.

BTW: I'm with you on the chemtrail theory. About a year ago, on the "AM Coast To Coast" show, a newspaper article from an Oklahoma publication was cited in which citizens had complained about the proliferation of this stuff and of the ill effects to crops and themselves.

I mentioned in an earlier correspondence that I have plenty of sky where I live, despite being close to Boston, and have never seen as many of these flights that apparently are similar to ones you've described and displayed.

Call me a wacko (or call me a taxi), but put NOTHING past Big Brother...

Chin Up,

JG

Edited March 30, 2006 by John Gillespie