Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerYou've done it again. Why do you present witnesses who contradict your
implausible theory? Senator Yarborough made it clear all 3 shots came
from the right rear of where he was sitting. That would be the TSBD not
the GK.
WRONG! You yourself must know how many people mistook the direction of
the shots from the GK to the TSBD.
Look where the VP Car is on the 2nd shot. GArnold claimed he hit the dirt
on the 1st shot. Do you think the top of the Grassy Knoll is visible from
the backseat of the VP Car? If Senator Yarborough thought the shots came
from the "right rear" why would he be looking at the GK?
Yarborough was in the third car. It would be doubtful that he could
see the TSBD from his position if he were sitting. He could definitely se
forward and to the right of the vehicle though.
Yarborough was riding in a convertible. I think he could see the 7 story
building to his right as they turned the corner onto Elm Street. What we
see below is the Altgens photo taken at the 2nd shot. I doubt Yarborough
could see the top of the GK from there. He would have no reason to look
that direction since he heard shots coming from the "right rear".
WRONG! Think it through. Where he CAN see, and where he looked may be
2 different things. Open car or not, he could see forward of the car, but
trying to turn and look back may not be so easy.
I gave you and Marsh a clue but neither of you did your homework. Two
highway signs blocked the view until passing the area below the
Pergola.
LOL! The sign was high up overhead! Think it through! In the Z-film
there was only one sign that got in the way of the filming, and the
limousines were at ground level, not up like Zapruder was, which would
mean a clear view of the GK (which was off to the side) from a vehicle.
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerhttp://www.jfktruth.org/LBJ/index.htm
http://www.jfktruth.org/LBJ/ducked/Altgens2LbjDuckedImprovedRedEyeEar.jp
http://grandsubversion.com/jfkAssassination/nobotimg/facts/lyndon_johnson_motorcade_photo.jpg
Post by mainframetechPost by clavigerhttp://mediaprocessor.websimages.com/width/890/crop/0,0,890x489/www.fittonbooks.org/algens.jpg
Post by mainframetechPost by clavigerHe probably saw Bill Newman dive on the ground. He could see
Newman close to the street much easier than some guy behind a wall on top
of the Grassy Knoll. Charles Hester dove to the ground too and he would
be easier to see on the wide open expanse of lawn in front of the pergola
than where GArnold claimed to be standing under the shadow of a tree
behind a wall at the top of the GK.
WHOA! Newman was far down the slope, while Arnold was up near the top,
in front of the fence. Big difference.
Yes it is. Easier for Senator Yarborough to see someone at street level
than on top of the GK under a tree standing behind a wall.
Under a tree wouldn't stop his vision, and up on the slope gives a
better chance than along the roadway.
Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is?
No, how about many of yours?
So you are saying GArnold standing behind a wall in the shade of a big oak
tree at the top of the knoll would be more obvious than the Newman family
standing on the curb out in the sunshine, plus 8 other witnesses in a row?
Are you sure about that?
WRONG! Arnold was standing back of the wall, and was standing much
higher than the wall, so he was not truly BEHIND the wall, as if he was
hidden. Also being in shade does not mean he was hidden from view. It
makes no difference how he compared to the Newman family, it matters how
well Yarborough could see him hitting the dirt.
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechGordon Arnold didn't write a book,
Most witnesses did not write a book.
Post by mainframetechand he didn't try to get on TV,
He appeared in the 1988 TV series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy".
Listen carefully next time. I said he did NOT TRY to get on TV.
He was willing to be on a TV series that attracted a worldwide audience.
He was asked and he went along with it. He did not solicit it.
All he had to say is no if he was afraid for his life from assassins who
were never identified and arrested.
You forget those that made statements later as did Arnold, probably
thinking that it was more safe later.
Can you be more specific? No other witness had a confrontation with the
two ambush snipers.
Arnold had no confrontation with any sniper, and no shooters either.
Those shooters would have been gone in a car a second after their last
shot. You really need to think these things through. As to witnesses
coming forward after waiting for things to cool down, Acquilla Clemmons is
a case in point.
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerYou can be sure The Conspiracy will be watching with great interest to see
if any other witnesses they need to silence. GArnold was the only
"witness" who claimed to see the snipers face-to-face.
Arnold was shipped out to Alaska right after the incident, and there
was no chance for anyone to see him or note his name or location. His
being part of a video was later, as with a few other witnesses.
He shipped out 3 days after the assassination. Plenty of time to notify
the DPD and FBI.
Notify them of what?
That he had a confrontation with two snipers on top of the Grassy Knoll
who fired their weapons at the Limousine and stole film from his camera.
But he did NOT have a confrontation with 2 snipers, or even any
shooters. Those guys would have been gone one second after their last
shot was fired into a car and out of there. So your whole premise is
faulty.
Post by clavigerIf so he was a victim of theft in a city park. The HSCA came to the
conclusion the sniper on the GK missed. According to GA they missed
twice. Maybe because GArnold was were a US Army uniform that made them
nervous. What they didn't know he was a scaredy-cat who went home and
didn't say anything to the authorities.
WRONG! Your continuing name calling on witnesses who can't defend
themselves is really sickening. And a number of people "went home and
didn't say anything".
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechHe could only tell them he saw just what they saw.
Who is they? No DPD saw two guys dressed like police officers with a
police car parked behind the fence or Pergola. No DSD did either. Those
low level guys would not have been in on the hit, unless you're claiming
the entire DPD and DSD were part of the conspiracy.
Post by mainframetechWhy would he think that was of huge need? He wouldn't. Think it through
and stop insisting on foolishness.
You appear to be an expert on foolishness.
You seem to have little logic and lots of insults when you can't think
of a reasonable reply. In any event, Arnold felt that he was better off
not getting involved. That was his choice.
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerIf any person
could recognize the triggerman it was GArnold, so if he's telling the
truth it was a really bad idea to be interviewed on that show. Now TC
knows his name, what he looks like, and where he lives.
It is doubtful that Arnold saw the face of a shooter, but a cover up
man he might have seen.
GArnold said the shooter talked to him face-to-face demanding his camera.
Post by mainframetechThe shooters would NOT stay around, they would get in their car and
get out of there. You have no evidence it was a shooter talking to him.
Should've done your homework. You embarrass yourself again for the
umpteenth time.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKarnoldG.htm
I've seen that article, so what's your point? As usual you try to play
mysterious and fail at it. No one knows what you're talking about if you
don't say it right out.
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerIn the Police Car parked behind the Pergola that no witness saw?
Post by mainframetechPost by clavigerHe would have anonymity with a the DPD and FBI. If necessary he could be
in the Federal Witness Protection program. Instead he couldn't resist his
15 minutes of fame, so now he is a prime target for the Conspiracy
clean-up team.
WRONG! Stop all your drama! He was not seen by authorities and the
only people to see him face to face were probably covering men who were
collecting any evidence against the shooters.
What are "covering men"? Who were they?
They would be part of the plot, but not shooters. They would try to
cover up for the shooters by grabbing evidence before it got to
authorities.
So who were they? There was nobody up there except the two snipers in
uniform that no other witness ever mentioned. Name some names.
WRONG! You've got to be right out of your mind! If I knew the names
then surely others would know their names and they would have been under
arrest long ago. Think it through!
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerUnless he's a phony and made up this dubious story Then he
has nothing to worry about and can keep on having fun playing his scam on
gullible people like you.
You've just spat out many opinions, where's the evidence?
I asked you first, where's the evidence GArnold was on the GK under a
tree? Not one witness saw him anywhere around the Pergola before, during,
or after the shooting took place.
You're repeating our previous chat. It's wasted time.
This story includes 3 invisible people + 1 invisible car. No witness saw
GArnold, 2 snipers dressed as cops or a police car behind the fence,
pergola, or parked in the access road to the parking lot.
WRONG! 2 witnesses at least saw Arnold, and Lee Bowers saw the shooters
behind the fence, and saw them get into a car and leave. There was no
police car there and that's another thing you've made up from your
imagination.
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechand he told his story to those that asked and went on about his life.
GArnold was interviewed four times: Earl Golz 1978, Henry Hurt 1982,
Gary Mack 1982, and Jim Marrs 1985.
And no doubt each time he was asked, he did NOT go and solicit them to
listen to his story, they came to him.
He embellished his story every time he told it.
Prove it. Show at last 2 different stories.
Nowhere Man: The Strange Story of Gordon Arnold
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm
McAdams files contain many 'hit pieces'. They can be used for some
evidence, but not relied on heavily.
Gotta have your "safe space" eh? OK, here is a CT opinion. Not McAdams
or Reitzes so it's safe for you to read.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/badgeman.htm
Well, they put Gordon Arnold on the GK.
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechSo why think he was lying?
His story changed every time he told it in media interviews, but he never
had any interviews with the Dallas Police or FBI. Had he chose to have a
meeting with them his information it would be in private and confidential.
His story was the same in all versions, giving all the same basic
information. Name the differences and you'll see.
Nowhere Man The Strange Story Of Gordon Arnold : Free Download ...
https://archive.org/details/NowhereManTheStrangeStoryOfGordonArnold
Full text of "Nowhere Man The Strange Story Of Gordon Arnold"
https://archive.org/stream/NowhereManTheStrangeStoryOfGordonArnold/Nowhere%20Man%20The%20Strange%20Story%20of%20Gordon%20Arnold_djvu.txt
That link goes to an article by Dave Reitzes who writes hit pieces in
favor of the WCR story. I distrust his writing, and his view is not the
view of Gordon Arnold, who can be followed in the video he was in. I
don't want Reitzes's opinion, I want Arnold's, which I have from the
video.
What are you afraid of? Reitzes did a lot of research into the mysterious
"witness". Whether you agree with it or not you need to read it for the
sake of argument. That's what grownups do.
I have no fear of anything related to the JFK story,
"Actions speak louder than words". In your case non-actions have the same
effect. You fear McAdams and Reitzes because they are experienced
researchers not amateurs. They aren't afraid to read anything by anybody.
WRONG! You decided that I was 'afraid', but your amateur psychiatry
won't cut it. I gave you reasons. If you don't listen and do all the
talking for me, then you're talking to yourself.
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetech. . . however, I tend to doubt the articles of a dyed in the wool WCR person.
Yes, we've noticed. You would much rather read a C-Team amateur
researcher like Douglas Horn.
WHOA! Are you at all familiar with Douglas Horne's involvement with
this case>? And the ARRB? His knowledge of this case is far more
substantial than anything you have done. And his research is far and away
beyond anything you have done. When you can write 5 volumes of
information on this case and get them published, let me know.
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechBelieving the WCR is the first step into foolishness.
They got it mostly right.
Now we've expressed our opinions. Back to evidence.
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerInstead he chose to tell his story on TV seen by a large audience in the
USA and United Kingdom. He didn't choose that, they came to him.
Now the killers know who he is, what he looks
like, the town he lives in, and how to find him. Not a very smart thing
to do if he was terrified of being on the conspiracy hit list.
As with some of the other witnesses that decided to shut up about what
they saw, he later felt safer and told his story. Acquilla Clemmons is
another example of that.
How could he feel safer knowing The Conspiracy is always vigilant for any
threat to expose them or ID the sniper team who made the hit from the GK?
So you've now decided what he was thinking? Amazing. A number of
witnesses felt safer after time had passed, and they then gave their
stories. Others didn't know their stories were useful, thinking that they
saw the exact same things the police did, so their info wasn't necessary.
GArnold was a soldier in the US Army. He had a duty to his
Commander-in-Chief. He had a duty as a citizen of Dallas. He had a duty
as an American. He failed all three. A 15 year old kid had more courage
than this cowardly soldier who is a disgrace to the US Army.
Oh stop all the drama. There was no responsibility attached to what he
saw,
Not for a coward.
Ah well. Nothing can be done about your problem of using insult when
you have no honest response.
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetech. . . and he had the option of getting out of there and not advertising
that he saw anything, which he did, as did a few others.
Yes this adult in the Army chose a cowardly option to run away and hide,
while a brave teenager in ROTC stuck around and notified police where a
man shooting at the motorcade was located.
LOL! I think telling police where a shooter was hiding in time to
catch him, was more important than reporting on a shooting that was over
by the time the witness could get to a cop. Think it through.
Post by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechMOST people tell the truth in these situations.
Chris
I think most witnesses tell the truth as best they can and a large number
of them did volunteer useful information to the DPD and FBI. Gordon
Arnold was not one of those helpful witnesses. There is no evidence to
indicate he was on the GK when the motorcade was ambushed by shots fired
from the right rear of the VP car Senator Yarborough was sitting in.
The evidence has been given, and you should respect that, rather than
trying to say I lied.
Chris
I don't think you lied, I just think you're gullible. I also think your
hobby is pounding square pegs into round holes.
I was unable to get you into a nice sensible round hole. You should
feel proud. As to gullible, naah, and not as paranoid as you.
Chris
Not as paranoid?! YOU are the CT in this argument not me. Conspiracy is
like a drug to you.
Ah, became a psychiatrist in my absence I see. You decided that ONLY
CT's are paranoid! That foolish behavior I spoke of earlier is coming out
now.
Chris
Not all CTs are paranoid but most of them want their political enemies to
be guilty of this crime, one way or another. If ever proved the KGB or
Castro were behind this crime they are going to be very disappointed. If
proved beyond a doubt LHO did this crime they are going to be very, very
disappointed. In fact they will be emotionally devastated.
The proof is already in books and witness statements. The one thing
that the LNs kept blabbing about has happened. They always ranted that
where was the people about to die giving up their testimony, and for sure,
they gave it up before dying, and the LNs were afraid to believe it after
investing half their lives in theories that turned out to be foolish.
Chris
