The article, basically just an illustrated interview with Hayward, never quotes him as saying he animated anything in GWANGI. It does, however, make him sound like he's taking credit for inventing this marvelous new technique of bringing these models to life by articulating them and shooting motion pictures of them one frame at a time. When you project the film, why, it looks like they're really moving! There's no mention of Ray Harryhausen, no mention of Willis O'Brien -- or Herbert Dawley, Jim Danforth, Wah Chang, Gene Warren, Edward Nassour Jr. or anyone else, for that matter. That, plus the obvious use of Gwangi, would certainly be enough for me to say, "That's it. You're outta here."

Harryhausen's usual explanation for Arthur Hayward never getting credit: Hayward did a lot of proper work for museums and the Royal Family, so getting credit in a mere motion picture might be embarrassing for him. I find that hard to swallow. If Hayward was so self-effacing, why, then, would he author an article about his movie work? Given the shadows in which Lofgren worked, and that seldom was Les Bowie's team ever singled out for their work (i.e., on JASON, MOON, etc.), I expect the explanation was, these movies are supposed to be the handiwork of one brilliant guy all by himself, not a guy working with a half dozen other specialists. And I expect Schneer had a contract with Hayward that kept him out of the publicity spotlight. The ANIMALS article would then clearly be a breech of trust, not to mention a breech of contract.