NOWHERE MAN

[BOZ]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:59:49 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm

Sadly, I think Mr. Arnold honestly thought he was there that day.

[Dave Reitzes]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:59:49 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm

I had a lot of fun researching this article on Gordon Arnold.

In response, a fairly prominent researcher launched a lengthy tirade at me
at the old JFK Lancer forum, blasting me for doubting Arnold and
promising/threatening to show the world what a sham my research really
was.

That was around 15 years ago, and I never heard another word about the
matter. Over the past decade or so, the researcher in question appears to
have completely turned his attention to advocating for the existence of
Bigfoot. (No, I'm not kidding.)

Dave

[mainframetech]

Yep, so did Senator Yarborough until he got the word that it wasn't
wise to get involved in it all. He could see ahead to the GK to see a
person in uniform take a dive into the dirt.

Chris

[claviger]

There is a much higher probability Bigfoots are roaming around the woods
than Gordon Arnold was on the Grassy Knoll with a camera. Numerous
witnesses claim to see Bigfoot and there's a famous film of one walking
down a creekbed. No witness saw GArnold and no film of him walking around
the GK.

[Anthony Marsh]

Your threats scared him away.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, there's a name for that.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Great digging. chapeau.

[BOZ]

Didn't Bigfoot wear a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe?

[bigdog]

Maybe he did see that but it is improbable that the person he saw was
Gordon Arnold.

[Jason Burke]

DO tell us, Anthony Anthony!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2017 4:53 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 8:08:56 PM UTC-6, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:59:49 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm
>>
>> I had a lot of fun researching this article on Gordon Arnold.
>>
>> In response, a fairly prominent researcher launched a lengthy tirade at me
>> at the old JFK Lancer forum, blasting me for doubting Arnold and
>> promising/threatening to show the world what a sham my research really
>> was.
>>
>> That was around 15 years ago, and I never heard another word about the
>> matter. Over the past decade or so, the researcher in question appears to
>> have completely turned his attention to advocating for the existence of
>> Bigfoot. (No, I'm not kidding.)
>>
>> Dave
>
> There is a much higher probability Bigfoots are roaming around the woods

That was just a case of mistaken identity. It turned out to be McAdams.

> than Gordon Arnold was on the Grassy Knoll with a camera. Numerous
> witnesses claim to see Bigfoot and there's a famous film of one walking
> down a creekbed. No witness saw GArnold and no film of him walking around
> the GK.
>

Not even a photo.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

Stop making up crap. Yarborough never said "in uniform."

> Chris
>

[John McAdams]

On 5 Jan 2017 15:49:22 -0500, Anthony Marsh

In fact, the man Yarborough saw was *not* in uniform. Yarborough
*inferred* the man had military training from his actions.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold2.htm

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 4:49:42 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

If Arnold's claims are correct then the claims made in "The Men on the
Sixth Floor" - that the shooters were in the TSBD - completely fall apart.

BTW, I'm not sure if you mentioned this but the authors in the Men on the
6th floor day say Loy Factor told them Oswald was one of the shooters.

That's not what Arnold apparently believed.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think he saw Bill Newman who had military training.

[Anthony Marsh]

Slander.
Bigfoot doesn't wear shoes.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/5/2017 3:54 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2017 15:49:22 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/4/2017 4:49 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 3:53:31 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:59:49 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, I think Mr. Arnold honestly thought he was there that day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, so did Senator Yarborough until he got the word that it wasn't
>>> wise to get involved in it all. He could see ahead to the GK to see a
>>> person in uniform take a dive into the dirt.
>>>
>>
>> Stop making up crap. Yarborough never said "in uniform."
>>
>
> In fact, the man Yarborough saw was *not* in uniform. Yarborough
> *inferred* the man had military training from his actions.
>

Exactly.
A++

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/5/2017 7:49 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 4:49:42 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 3:53:31 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:59:49 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm
>>>
>>> Sadly, I think Mr. Arnold honestly thought he was there that day.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep, so did Senator Yarborough until he got the word that it wasn't
>> wise to get involved in it all. He could see ahead to the GK to see a
>> person in uniform take a dive into the dirt.
>>
>> Chris
>
> If Arnold's claims are correct then the claims made in "The Men on the
> Sixth Floor" - that the shooters were in the TSBD - completely fall apart.
>

How does that follow? Arnold did not say that there were no shots from
the TSBD. Just that he heard ONE shot coming from behind him.

> BTW, I'm not sure if you mentioned this but the authors in the Men on the
> 6th floor day say Loy Factor told them Oswald was one of the shooters.
>

Cute, but irrelevant.

> That's not what Arnold apparently believed.
>
>

How would YOU know?

[bigdog]

Now that's very interesting. I'm quite sure Chris has not mentioned that.
Seems he is engaging in his own cover up.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Remember that the CT version of the murder is that there were
many shooters, so shooting could easily occur from the TSBD and the GK as
well. In fact it was necessary to be sure the target was killed.
Otherwise there would have been hell to pay for the plotters. JFK left
alive would go on a hunt for the shooters.

Yes, Factor said that Oswald was there, but the authors said they
doubted that, they felt that Factor was trying to spread the guilt around
and off himself. They spoke with him in 3 interviews.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Although the article doesn't mention if Yarborough saw a uniform or not,
what really matters is that Yarborough saw a man 'hit the dirt'.
Arnold's uniform may or may not have tickled his memory of the Army and
hitting the dirt in training. An interesting effort might be to find the
man that 'hit the dirt' when Yarborough saw someone do it. Third car back
is plenty close enough to see someone 'hit the dirt'. I doubt the few men
with a family with him when they went to ground would have been described
by Yarborough as a man. The family members would have been mentioned in
some form.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Ah! The expert wades in with a thought. And who do you think it was
in place of Gordon Arnold? Who else 'hit the dirt' which is the phrase
that Yarborough and Arnold both used?

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 7 Jan 2017 16:20:51 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 3:54:05 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 5 Jan 2017 15:49:22 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1/4/2017 4:49 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 3:53:31 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:59:49 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>> >>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm
>> >>>
>> >>> Sadly, I think Mr. Arnold honestly thought he was there that day.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yep, so did Senator Yarborough until he got the word that it wasn't
>> >> wise to get involved in it all. He could see ahead to the GK to see a
>> >> person in uniform take a dive into the dirt.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Stop making up crap. Yarborough never said "in uniform."
>> >
>>
>> In fact, the man Yarborough saw was *not* in uniform. Yarborough
>> *inferred* the man had military training from his actions.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold2.htm
>>
>
>
> Although the article doesn't mention if Yarborough saw a uniform or not,

Actually, it says Yarborough "surmised" that the man had military
training.

He would not have to "surmise" that if the man had a uniform.

>what really matters is that Yarborough saw a man 'hit the dirt'.
>Arnold's uniform may or may not have tickled his memory of the Army and
>hitting the dirt in training. An interesting effort might be to find the
>man that 'hit the dirt' when Yarborough saw someone do it. Third car back
>is plenty close enough to see someone 'hit the dirt'. I doubt the few men
>with a family with him when they went to ground would have been described
>by Yarborough as a man. The family members would have been mentioned in
>some form.
>

In TMWKK, he says the man jumped "up against a wall." But Arnold's
supposed position in that documentary was *behind* the retaining wall.

(This is different from his claimed position in a Dallas Morning News
article in the late 70s, where he placed himself out in front of the
Stockade Fence.)

So he would, from Yarborough's position, have disappeared *behind* a
wall.

If he was there, which he was not.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

Sorry to spoil your little statement. Senator Ralph Yarborough saw a
military man 'hitting the dirt', and the only person we know that did that
on the GK was Gordon Arnold. Much later Yarborough changed his mind, but
his sighting fit what was happening on the GK. Arnold said he 'hit the
dirt'.

Of course that ruins all the LN talk of a "lone nut" when there were
other shooters, so you can be sure the LNs will say anything they can to
get rid of Arnold.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Factor said there were three shooters in the TSBD who fired all of the
shots. All were on the sixth floor (so much for the claim that a shooter
was on the 5th floor) and that Oswald was one of the shooters. Hence the
title of the book: "The Men on the Sixth Floor."

Here's an excerpt from the book in which he (Factor) was interviewed:

"What did they pay you [Factor] the $10,000 to do?"

Loy stammered through an unconvincing explanation of how he merely
assisted the group, that the woman [Ruth Ann] was the radio operator,
Oswald and the man who hired Loy were the shooters and that he had been
nothing more than some sort of back up.

He reaffirmed the story of Sam Rayburn's funeral, and his chance meeting
with the stranger, the target practice incident, and his being picked up
and driven to Dallas two days before the assassination. He told of the
little house that served as the base of operation, the individuals at the
house, including the appearance of Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald.

He stated that after the shots were fired, everyone but Oswald escaped out
the back door of the book building, he and the young woman leading the
way."

Link/source comes from John Simkins's tie: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKfactor.htm

If Arnold's story is true - that there were shooters or "a" shooter on the
GK - then the claims in the "The Men on the Sixth Floor" that the shooters
were in the TSDB are wrong. Unless, of course, the GK shooter that Arnold
saw was not connected to the TSBD shooter.

Arnold said all of the shots he heard/felt came from behind him on the GK.

"[Arnold] said he heard two shots, "and then there was a blend. For a
single bolt action, he had to have been firing darn good because I
don’t think anybody could fire that rapid a bolt action."

I don't see hoe one can believe both accounts. There are too many
inconsistencies.

[BOZ]

Bill Newman hit the dirt. Yarborough saw Newman hitting the dirt.

[Anthony Marsh]

More likely it was Hester inside the Pergola.

> (This is different from his claimed position in a Dallas Morning News
> article in the late 70s, where he placed himself out in front of the
> Stockade Fence.)
>
> So he would, from Yarborough's position, have disappeared *behind* a
> wall.
>

The retaining wall.
Some people here get confused about the difference between a fence and a
wall. Even Trump isn't that stupid."No, I didn't say a FENCE, I said a
WALL. A GREAT WALL."

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe Newman, maybe Hester. If there was only grass on the grassy knoll,
why did he say dirt? Because it's well-known military saying.
How come they don't call it the DIRTY KNOLL?

> Chris
>

[bigdog]

One has to really stretch to believe either one.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe, but it was only grass. The dirt part is just an idiom.
BTW, I just saw a SyFy movie which explained that Saved by the Bell
comes from burying people in a coffin which has a string which goes up
to a bell in case they were buried alive by mistake.
I saw another sci-fi movie where they upgraded it to a telephone.

[OHLeeRedux]

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 7:16:07 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/7/2017 4:21 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 1:37:36 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 4:49:42 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 3:53:31 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:59:49 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
> >>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> Sadly, I think Mr. Arnold honestly thought he was there that day.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yep, so did Senator Yarborough until he got the word that it wasn't
> >>> wise to get involved in it all. He could see ahead to the GK to see a
> >>> person in uniform take a dive into the dirt.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Maybe he did see that but it is improbable that the person he saw was
> >> Gordon Arnold.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ah! The expert wades in with a thought. And who do you think it was
> > in place of Gordon Arnold? Who else 'hit the dirt' which is the phrase
> > that Yarborough and Arnold both used?
> >
>
> Maybe Newman, maybe Hester.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[mainframetech]

Both were true. The shooter on the GK and in the TSBD 6th floor were
not connected except by the walkie-talkie which signaled to start firing.

Chris

[mainframetech]

And where was Bill Newman located? Down near Elm street? Or up by the
fence on the GK?

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! We seem to have forgotten the author's statement in "The Men on
the Sixth Floor" that they believed that Factor was lying about Oswald
being there, and that he was trying to spread his guilt around others and
off himself. Saying he was an observer that was picked for his shooting
ability is really obviously a phony statement. Why pay $10,000 to just an
observer? It was another witness that had less guilt and could rat on
everyone else.

> Link/source comes from John Simkins's tie: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKfactor.htm
>
> If Arnold's story is true - that there were shooters or "a" shooter on the
> GK - then the claims in the "The Men on the Sixth Floor" that the shooters
> were in the TSDB are wrong. Unless, of course, the GK shooter that Arnold
> saw was not connected to the TSBD shooter.
>

WRONG! There were shooters all over the plaza to be sure of killing
the target. A perfectly logical plan. If JFK had lived, it would be the
end of normal living for the plotters. The shooters in the TSBD were
there mainly to fire the MC rifle out the window to lend forensic evidence
to the situation, and to give folks in the street a place to point at and
send cops into. The Oswald rifle had to be fired recently, and at the
motorcade to be sure it was seen as evidence.

> Arnold said all of the shots he heard/felt came from behind him on the GK.
>
> "[Arnold] said he heard two shots, "and then there was a blend. For a
> single bolt action, he had to have been firing darn good because I
> don’t think anybody could fire that rapid a bolt action."
>
> I don't see hoe one can believe both accounts. There are too many
> inconsistencies.

It worked out just fine. The 2 groups of shooters were independent of
each other except for the walkie-talkie signal to open fire. There is
also proof that some shots came from in front of the limousine as well.
6 witnesses stated that there was a through and through bullet hole in the
windshield FROM THE FRONT!

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 4:29:40 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2017 16:20:51 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 3:54:05 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 5 Jan 2017 15:49:22 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> >> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 1/4/2017 4:49 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> >> >> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 3:53:31 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:59:49 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
> >> >>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Sadly, I think Mr. Arnold honestly thought he was there that day.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep, so did Senator Yarborough until he got the word that it wasn't
> >> >> wise to get involved in it all. He could see ahead to the GK to see a
> >> >> person in uniform take a dive into the dirt.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Stop making up crap. Yarborough never said "in uniform."
> >> >
> >>
> >> In fact, the man Yarborough saw was *not* in uniform. Yarborough
> >> *inferred* the man had military training from his actions.
> >>
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold2.htm
> >>
> >

Stop making up crap. I can't find any statement anywhere in that link
that says that Yarborough saw a man who was NOT in uniform. It is
something we don't know as far as I can see. Perhaps the statement you
seek is somewhere else? Remember, the story was written by Dave Reitzes,
who is as biased toward the LN view as you can get.

> >
> > Although the article doesn't mention if Yarborough saw a uniform or not,
>
> Actually, it says Yarborough "surmised" that the man had military
> training.
>
> He would not have to "surmise" that if the man had a uniform.
>
> >what really matters is that Yarborough saw a man 'hit the dirt'.
> >Arnold's uniform may or may not have tickled his memory of the Army and
> >hitting the dirt in training. An interesting effort might be to find the
> >man that 'hit the dirt' when Yarborough saw someone do it. Third car back
> >is plenty close enough to see someone 'hit the dirt'. I doubt the few men
> >with a family with him when they went to ground would have been described
> >by Yarborough as a man. The family members would have been mentioned in
> >some form.
> >
>
> In TMWKK, he says the man jumped "up against a wall." But Arnold's
> supposed position in that documentary was *behind* the retaining wall.
>

He was also in front of the fence, which may have been interpreted as a
'wall'. Or possibly up against the 'back' of a wall?

> (This is different from his claimed position in a Dallas Morning News
> article in the late 70s, where he placed himself out in front of the
> Stockade Fence.)
>

As most LNs here have said there will be some little differences in a
person's story over time. The basic story has remained the same
throughout the attempt to shut him up and get rid of his evidence.

[BOZ]

Buried alive? Sounds like a cross between Voodoo and Keith Richards.

[bigdog]

Thank you for once again demonstrating my point.

[Anthony Marsh]

Must be a Hammer film.