Jump to content
The Education Forum

The 3 Men on the Steps


Don Bailey

Recommended Posts

Don,

It's great to see some one else dealing with facts & not hearsay.

Thanks, Miles ... I assume you were referring to me as the one dealing with facts. If need be, I will also show you two how what Don thought was an ear was nothing more than a sunlit leaf - Always glad to help with getting the facts straight ... as you must surely know by now!

Bill Miller

EMMETT HUDSON

Might be worth a read -

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search

Bill Miller Thu Aug-08-02 01:41 PM

Member since Jul 14th 2002

5951 posts Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list

#2326, "RE: Emmett Hudson - the real E.J.H."

In response to Reply # 8

Why anyone would think the guy in the red shirt is Hudson is a mystery to me. That man was neither standing next to a man on the steps, nor could have rose up together with a man next to him on the steps, nor is wearing the light colored clothing that Hudson, himself said he wore.

When I spoke to William Hudson (Emmett's sone) - he made it quite clear that his family was well aware of the Moorman photograph and which man was his dad. It sounded to me as if this topic was dicussed a good many times over the years amongst the family and personal friends. I should call William again one day to see if he'd be willing to tell me things his dad may have said in private that isn't in the official record.

Anyway - below is Hudson's Social Security number. He was born in 1905 and that would make him the 58 year old man that William said his dad was at the time of the assassination. Hudson died in June of 1991 and was born in the state of Arkansas. His middle name was Joseph ... Emmett Joseph Hudson.

I hope this has helped. There are other search engines one can use to find out about Hudson.

Social Security Death Index Search Results

June 2002 Update - 68,598,675 records - Updated Monthly The key to your research

Join Ancestry.com Today!

The most full-featured and up-to-date SSDI search engine on the internet

Field Value Records Results

Last Name HUDSON 36223 36223

First Name EMMETT 23118 15

Middle Name J Scanned

Results 1 thru 1 of 1

Name Birth Death Last Residence Last Benefit SSN Issued Tools

EMMETT J HUDSON 21 May 1905 23 Jun 1991 (not specified) (none specified) 432-20-8267 Arkansas SS-5 Letter

Add Post-em

Search Ancestry.com

Great News Bill, I now have something to work with to eliminate the person that is dressed in the same attire as the old man hobo. You have to understand Mr. Miller that my studies of the photographs of these two people look like the same

person. There is no mention of Hudson on the internet other than his testimony. His testimony leads one to beleive he is the man in the red shirt.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Great News Bill, I now have something to work with to eliminate the person that is dressed in the same attire as the old man hobo. You have to understand Mr. Miller that my studies of the photographs of these two people look like the same

person. There is no mention of Hudson on the internet other than his testimony. His testimony leads one to beleive he is the man in the red shirt.

Don

Don,

All I can do is tell you the truth as to which man Emmett Hudson was in the assassination films and photographs. As far as your Internet search goes ... it was an Internet search that lead me to contacting his son, so you may need to hone your search skills. I believe it was on the Internet right here where the following was posted ...

"On 11/25/63, FBI agents Gaston C. Thompson and Jack B. Peden interviewed Hudson and dictated their report, file #DL 89-43, on 11/26/63. In that interview, Hudson called attention to the 11/24/63 edition of the Dallas Times Herald which contained a copy of the Moorman photo. Of the three men shown standing on the concrete stairs, Hudson "POINTED TO THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE" and said, "That is me in the light colored clothing and that is where I was standing at the time the President was shot.""

Which person Hudson was out of the three choices of those people who were on the steps has been known by seasoned researchers for 45 years now. And even if you don't think the FBI was smart enough to know who Hudson was out of the three choices and with Emmett right there in front of them pointing to his image, then I can damned sure be confident that Emmett's son (William) can be trusted as to which of those three men was his father. So I will leave you to your world where Hudson can be whomever you wish him to be. I'd even be willing to bet that the Hudson family would like for you to be their star witness so to make Emmett out to be the man who stood on the pedestal and filmed what has always been known as "The Zapruder Film" just so they can at least have a share of the money the Zapruder family got for that film.

Seriously now, all this makes me wonder now why you came onto this forum because if you are going to take a position like the one you have wrongly taken over which man on the steps Emmett Hudson was in lieu of what you have been shown so far, then an 'Education Forum' might not be your cup of tea.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what I’m saying is that Emmett Hudson is the red shirt man on the stairs.

Don

And what I am telling you is that Emmett Hudson was 58 years old on the day of the assassination, stocky, and had gray bushy hair.

Bill

Sorry Bill, you are wrong... Hudson was 56 on the day of the assassination. The red shirt man does fit the description of a stocky 56-year-old man. The gray bushy hair is your own claim. The old man tramp also has gray hair as a disguise; maybe his hair was bushy underneath his hat. Anyways, I go by the facts, not hearsay from some person on a forum.

Don

**********************************************************************

"Sorry Bill, you are wrong... Hudson was 56 on the day of the assassination. The red shirt man does fit the description of a stocky 56-year-old man. The gray bushy hair is your own claim. The old man tramp also has gray hair as a disguise; maybe his hair was bushy underneath his hat. Anyways, I go by the facts, not hearsay from some person on a forum."

HEARSAY? Why is it that for some strange reason I seem to denote a bit of chicanery going on here, especially coming from a "supposed" newbie. Now, how many times have I seen a provocateur try to hide behind that worn-out excuse? Quibbling over two year age discrepancy, at that! But, the sheer audacity to state, "The gray bushy hair is your own claim. The old man tramp also has gray hair as a disguise; maybe his hair was bushy underneath his hat."

Well, you know something else, Don? It's this particular brand of speculation and supposition that tends to give the research community a bad name, but even worse, it tends to drive a wedge between legitimate would-be collaborators.

For just once, I would hope that the seasoned researchers might see through this superfluous attempt of yours and Miles the Numbskull Scull and Co.'s frivolous, hypothetical, hodge-podge form of analysis you seem hell-bent on twisting to suit your ridiculous agenda. All you guys are doing is having a free-for-all at setting people up, in the hopes of setting them against one another. I see it, plain as day. But, it ain't gonna work here, this time.

You may be a "newbie" to this forum, Don. But, you'll never convince me you haven't trolled and frequented the "newsgroups," and any of the other forums pertaining to this subject. I'm looking right through you, mister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be a "newbie" to this forum, Don. But, you'll never convince me you haven't trolled and frequented the "newsgroups," and any of the other forums pertaining to this subject. I'm looking right through you, mister.

Terry....Personally I think "Don" is a fake, and that his analysis goes far beyond the realms of lunacy. Notice the uncanny resemblance between "Don" and Mark Chapman.

Duncan

Duncan,

Chapman was a CIA robot.

As you know:

Chapman was allowed to plead guilty to second degree murder before his trial began and, despite being assessed as delusional and possibly psychotic, was sentenced to 20 years to life.

No surprise there.

Wherever his name is mentioned it sparks hysterical screeching, as seen uncannily here.

The Company has its uses.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be a "newbie" to this forum, Don. But, you'll never convince me you haven't trolled and frequented the "newsgroups," and any of the other forums pertaining to this subject. I'm looking right through you, mister.

Terry....Personally I think "Don" is a fake, and that his analysis goes far beyond the realms of lunacy. Notice the uncanny resemblance between "Don" and Mark Chapman.

Duncan

Duncan,

Chapman was a CIA robot.

As you know:

Chapman was allowed to plead guilty to second degree murder before his trial began and, despite being assessed as delusional and possibly psychotic, was sentenced to 20 years to life.

No surprise there.

Wherever his name is mentioned it sparks hysterical screeching, as seen uncannily here.

The Company has its uses.

:D

But his name was mentioned first in Duncan's post, and if if SPARKS "hysterical screeching", that would mean that it would have to occur on posts written after Duncan's, wouldn't it?

Kathy

Exactly right, Kathy.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D

I noticed that your thumb Miles looks a little swollen ... is that from sucking on it? You know there may also be a clinic for that disorder, as well.

Oh yes, BTW .... Are these still the two trees that you claim Bowers saw the two men between that he testified to Mr. Ball about or have you taken a different position on what trees Bowers was talking about?

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be a "newbie" to this forum, Don. But, you'll never convince me you haven't trolled and frequented the "newsgroups," and any of the other forums pertaining to this subject. I'm looking right through you, mister.

Terry....Personally I think "Don" is a fake, and that his analysis goes far beyond the realms of lunacy. Notice the uncanny resemblance between "Don" and Mark Chapman.

Duncan

Duncan, this is a scaling issue with a direct parallel to the

GI Joe scaling.

Note the difference between the two as to nose line of the eyeglass lens.

Just as Arnold was mistaken, understandably, for GI Joe, so now I'm afraid you are mistaken in

equating Don & Mark.

Don is Don, and a researcher of insight.

avatar-1-1.jpgChapman-1-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan, this is a scaling issue with a direct parallel to the

GI Joe scaling.

Note the difference between the two as to nose line of the eyeglass lens.

Just as Arnold was mistaken, understandably, for GI Joe, so now I'm afraid you are mistaken in

equating Don & Mark.

Don is Don, and a researcher of insight.

Miles, as I recall - you had come out applauding Duncan's scaling with what you call the 'GI Joe' scaling. And while many people can look similar and its a waste of time IMO to utilize forum space in an attempt to match up the various photos of alleged members to well known nut cases ... at the same time you cannot validate anyone's bio or photo unless you have first hand knowledge to do so. So what I am saying is to not over-play your hand or else you'll appear to have a motive for doing so. And about the insight ... his not knowing who Emmett Hudson was on the steps was very insightful - don't you think!!!

Now about those two trees with the red lines going to them ... are those the two trees you have chosen that Bowers was talking about?

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don is Don, and a researcher of insight.

Insight in to what? Colour Blindness? I have not contributed to this thread because of it's ridiculous claim from the word go, that the red shirted man was Hudson, but I can spot a nutter a mile away, In Don's case it was from 10, 000 miles blindfolded. :ph34r:

Duncan

Duncan,

I'm beginning to see what you mean here. I think.

Originally, I thought it was a master stroke to associate Hudson with the red shirted man on the lower step (who, of course, as everyone knows is NOT Hudson in actuality) because of an insight on Don's part that:

BOTH MEN WERE WEARING PLAID !

I had puzzled over the strange statement by Bowers, who is a always very careful & meticulous in his observations, that he had seen:

A PLAID SHIRT OR A PLAID JACKET.

Certainly Bowers would have said a shirt only, or a jacket only, not both.

So, that's Don's insight, at least as I understood it, that Bowers had intermittently seen BOTH !!

At one time Bowers would have seen the younger man in a plaid shirt, & then when the younger man had stepped out of view behind the fence, Bowers would have seen Hudson in his plaid jacket.

Brilliant!

On second thought, however, I see now that Don may actually believe that the red shirt man may really be Hudson OR that Don is only saying that the red shirt man is Hudson in order to bait Miller into a trap.

Which trap has apparently succeeded, save your blood hound nose for an imposture's spoor.

Don knew, under your construction, that Miller would think that "Don" was a stupid newbie & would attack "Don" as such because that's what Miller always does, pounce on somebody as an idiot who is spouting ridiculous ideas.

So, Don is not Don, but a shrewed operator who is determined to have a rather malicious laugh at Miller by tricking him in an obvious way, i.e., obvious to everyone but me & Miller.

Well, I'm not laughing at this unfair prank played on an unsuspecting & gullible fellow member, even if Miller & I have had our erstwhile disagreements.

So, thanks, Duncan for throwing light on what I was overlooking. Am I right?

Wonder if Don will return, now?

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had puzzled over the strange statement by Bowers, who is a always very careful & meticulous in his observations, that he had seen:

A PLAID SHIRT OR A PLAID JACKET.

Certainly Bowers would have said a shirt only, or a jacket only, not both.

First you say Bowers was meticulous in his observations, yet Bowers doesn't "meticulously" mention seeing three men ... he only mentions two men - one of them wearing dark pants which could not have been Hudson and could not have been the man in the plaid shirt/jacket. To this day you have offered no reasonable explanation as to why the meticulous Lee Bowers didn't mention Hudson who was only inches from the other man that you claim is one of the two men Bowers spoke of.

So, that's Don's insight, at least as I understood it, that Bowers had intermittently seen BOTH !!

At one time Bowers would have seen the younger man in a plaid shirt, & then when the younger man had stepped out of view behind the fence, Bowers would have seen Hudson in his plaid jacket.

Brilliant!

Not so brilliant IMO! Bowers said the two men were standing and facing the oncoming motorcade and at about 10 to 15 feet apart according to the meticulous Lee Bowers. The assassination films show Hudson and the guy next to him facing the street. And at no time right up to the kill shot to JFK does any of the men step off anywhere - let alone out of view behind a fence.

On second thought, however, I see now that Don may actually believe that the red shirt man may really be Hudson OR that Don is only saying that the red shirt man is Hudson in order to bait Miller into a trap.

Yes, thats it ... Don was baiting me ... good one Miles.

Which trap has apparently succeeded, save your blood hound nose for an imposture's spoor.

Don knew, under your construction, that Miller would think that "Don" was a stupid newbie & would attack "Don" as such because that's what Miller always does, pounce on somebody as an idiot who is spouting ridiculous ideas.

So, Don is not Don, but a shrewed operator who is determined to have a rather malicious laugh at Miller by tricking him in an obvious way, i.e., obvious to everyone but me & Miller.

Well, I'm not laughing at this unfair prank played on an unsuspecting & gullible fellow member, even if Miller & I have had our erstwhile disagreements.

You (Miles) are the author of your own record as a serious and responsible researcher ... IMO you just hurt yourself in the eyes of your peers.

Now Miles, I will ask you for the third time ... Where along the fence do you believe the smoke came from???

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You (Miles) are the author of your own record as a serious and responsible researcher ...

Bill Miller[/b]

As a serious and responsible researcher, I will author my record by expressing sympathy to a fellow member who apparently has been

made the butt of a cruel joke & consequently has been made to look a laughing stock to the readers of this & other threads.

I'm sorry this has happened.

What do you think?

Do you agree with Duncan, now, that you may have been the victim of someone who bears you ill?

(As to your requests to me to provide you with off topic data, I'm afraid that this is "Don's" thread & his topic is the 3 men's ID only.)

Like Duncan, I really do not see a need to continue on this thread, especially considering what has happened.

Duncan's right.

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You (Miles) are the author of your own record as a serious and responsible researcher ...

Bill Miller[/b]

As a serious and responsible researcher, I will author my record by expressing sympathy to a fellow member who apparently has been

made the butt of a cruel joke & consequently has been made to look a laughing stock to the readers of this & other threads.

I'm sorry this has happened.

What do you think?

Do you agree with Duncan, now, that you may have been the victim of someone who bears you ill?

(As to your requests to me to provide you with off topic data, I'm afraid that this is "Don's" thread & his topic is the 3 men's ID only.)

Like Duncan, I really do not see a need to continue on this thread, especially considering what has happened.

Duncan's right.

Oh Miles,

You are calling yourself gullible and claiming Bill as victim (as I'm sure you were here too).And how noble of you to request, on Bill's behalf, that this matter cease!!

So gracious!!!

Kathy

Psssst:

:secret 'Tween you and me, I think it is really a way for you to get out of answering Bill's question.

:secret

Kathy,

Ssshhhhhh.

Between you & me, I don't want Miller further humiliated & have any more donkey tails pinned on his already wounded vanity.

Why?... Ssshhhhh.

Because Miller has supported Ed Hoffman's tale as Gospel truth and now the hydrogen bomb has hit ground zero :eek :

hbomb-l.jpg

http://www.dfwvirtualtours.net/jfkstuff/freewayman.pdf

Ouch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psssst:

:secret 'Tween you and me, I think it is really a way for you to get out of answering Bill's question.

Kathy and all,

The reason Miles knows that he doesn't want to answer that question about the smoke, as a serious researcher only looking for the truth would, is that when the smoke was brought up in another thread some time ago, it was Miles who tried to push the smoke away from the Hat Man location to a point even further "WEST" towards the underpass so to attribute it to Duncan's alleged sniper location.

Miles wrote: "The smoke is drifting NW to SE on the wind. Therefore, from Sam's perch atop the underpass

the smoke would seem to emanate from midget man's spot, when in fact it came from about

33 feet from the fence corner. Thus, when Sam ran to the end of the fence & then back to the

small trampled muddy area at the fence, Sam mistakenly assumed that this area was the origin

of the smoke & by further extrapolation the point of the firing of the shot & by further extrapolation

the position of the sniper.

A simple, honest, understandable error & a forgivable error.

M "

Miles went on to add: "Hudson's report that the smoke was 15 feet to the right of the tree is accounted for by the fact that the wind

was blowing from NW to SE; thus, toward Hudson with time elapse to consider"

Now if one goes back to this link http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0251&st=330 and the go to Miles response #336, they will see two images of the knoll where Miles placed red arrows showing people where he believed the smoke came from AT THE FENCE. Notice the slope of the knoll as it rises just to the base of the fence where is then flattens out slightly at the fence. The slope is the "INCLINE" and the area between the top of the incline to the tower was called the "HIGH GROUND" by Lee Bowers. Now listen to Bowers response very carefully as he answers Ball's question ...

Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?

Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.

Ball specifically asked about the 'HIGH SIDE --- HIGH GROUND' and that was when Bowers told him of the two men that Miles now wants everyone to believe was halfway down the steps east of the fence.

Then Ball went on to ask for more details about these men ...

Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately?

Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.

Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?

Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.

So Bowers time stamps when these men were standing 10 to 15 feet away from one another and it was as the caravan (motorcade) was coming towards them. Emmett Hudson testified under oath that he had been sitting on the steps right next to the man next to him and that they merely stood up as the motorcade arrived. Hudson didn't say that he immediately came down from the HIGH GROUND, nor did he say that about anyone coming to join him in that way.

Bowers told Mark Lane that in the immediate vicinity where these two men were standing that he saw a flash of light or smoke that immediately caught his eye. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw

I believe that Miles has avoided answering my question because he knows that he is on record as to saying where he believed that smoke came from and it was nowhere close to Hudson and company down on the steps. I believe Miles knows that the embankment stops at the south side of the fence and the High Ground starts at that point and runs across the RR yard to Bowers tower. I believe that Miles knows that when Bowers says he saw a flash of light or smoke, that Lee was talking about a possible muzzle flash that caught his eye and that Bowers probably did see the smoke right there where the embankment meets the High Ground which was at the fence.

I also asked Miles earlier about two trees that he was talking about in another thread, but relating them to a LOS Bowers would have had if he were talking about the two men being down on the steps. Miles avoided answering that question as well because from Bowers tower field of view - one man would have filled the space between the two trees that Miles had alluded to. Miles used an illustration that EBC had created which left out the Hudson tree altogether. What a coincidence it was for that tree to be missing from that particular illustration because the distance between that tree and the next large tree over would have covered the area where Hat Man has been said to have stood, it would have covered the area where the smoke came through the trees, and it would have covered the spot where Holland took Lane to show him where he believe the sound of a shot and smoke had come from the fence.

That's my opinion based on the responses and then lack of responses I have gotten from Miles in his participation on this subject. For those researchers who were more interested in pictures of atomic blast ... Miles may have been somewhat helpful by supplying some, if only most were repeats.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...