Question for Don Roberdeau

[Wim Dankbaar]

Who were the other two people besides Emmett Hudson on the stairs on the knoll?

Are they not on your map? I can't see any names there.

Wim

[Shanet Clark]

Don

Some other questions about your impressive research chart.

One, how firm are the names of the people on the overpass?

Were they really all RR employees? They look like police/detectives.

Two, how elevated was Nix relative to Moorman?

They had similar point of views, but the classic gunman and carhood show up clearly in the Nix motion picture but not in Moorman's polaroid...also,

where do you think the car (the carhood near classic gunman figure) was?

Could the car have been up close to the retaining wall? It looks like it in Nix.

Has anyone identified the car behind the wall?

Do you agree that the limousine had slowed to eight miles an hour?

Were the brake lights on?

Thank you for all your efforts.............

Edited November 30, 2004 by Shanet Clark

[Tim Carroll]

Two, how elevated was Nix relative to Moorman?

They had similar point of views, but the classic gunman and carhood show up clearly in the Nix motion picture but not in Moorman's polaroid...also,

where do you think the car (the carhood near classic gunman figure) was?

Could the car have been up close to the retaining wall? It looks like it in Nix.

Has anyone identified the car behind the wall?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shanet,

I will jump in with regard to the car not being up against the retaining wall. It was not possible, and if there were a classic gunman, he would not have been atop or near a car, despite the appearance. The gunman image is in front of the pergola wall. The first photo collage contains a section of one of Don's diagrams, with the car visible in Nix shown (although I believe it could have been closer), but the "X" is my own insertion, attempting to demonstrate the separation between the car's location and the gunman image's location. Also, Nix was on the other side of Main Street, while Moorman was right across Elm, looking up at a steeper angle, with the parking lot out of her range of sight.

Here's a photo of me taken from Nix's location a couple of weeks ago (I'm wearing the white shirt). Note that I overcompensated to disprove the 9' height requirement contained in the ITEK study. From my position here, I had a line of sight to the "X" on the street, although JFK's head would have been 4' higher than that:

Here's a photo I took of the line of sight to the headshot location from the classic gunman location, again with 4' of overcompensation, since "X" on the street is 4' lower than JFK's head would have been:

After reviewing the above pictures, it's interesting to note the HSCA panel's conclusions:

The Panel also reviewed a previous report by the Itek Corp. (114) Itek

measured the relative displacement of the classic gunman in successive frames

of the Nix film as the camera panned from right to left. The extent to which

an object shifts in successive frames can be used to caculate the distance

from camera to object by applying the basic principles of photogrammetry. They

calculated the distance from the camera to the object in this way and found

that the calculations placed the object very near shelter 3 of Pergola 2 in

Dealey Plaza. (ILS) Further study by Itek of the ground elevation in relation

to the retaining wall showed that a line of fire toward Dealey Plaza would

require that a rifle near this structure be 9 feet above ground. Itek

concluded that the classic gunman object was a pattern of light and shadow on

shelter 3. The Panel agrees with these conclusions.

Tim

Edited December 1, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Wim Dankbaar]

That Moorman blowup I find pretty convincing. It must be hell of coincidence that shadows like that just happen to line up with contoures and the size of a human being, up to the hands and shadows on the face (eyes and forehead and receding hairline)

There is one problem though. I can't find that outline in my copies of the Moorman picture. Are you sure it's a blowup from Moorman?

Wim

Edited December 3, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar

[Tim Carroll]

That Moorman blowup I find pretty convincing. It must be hell of coincidence that shadows like that just happen to line up with contoures and the size of a human being, up to the hands and shadows on the face (eyes and forehead and receding hairline)

There is one problem though. I can't find that outline in my copies of the Moorman picture. Are you sure it's a blowup from Moorman?

Wim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the same problem I have with Badgeman and Hatman. The blow-up is David Lifton's #5 Man. I personally don't find anything conclusive in Moorman's very low quality polaroid. I am, however, very persuaded by Nix and Bell.

Tim

[Shanet Clark]

Wim

we went into detail on this on the "triple overpass thread"...check it out.

The big problem with classic gunman is that he is in NIX and BELL

but not in Moorman....Hence, I am asking how elevated Nix was over Moorman.

You are right; shadows and light dont' go into the marksmen stance, fire, look up, then look to their right as the target drives away. Tim, maybe you should assemble a time line of these four photos.

The HSAC didn't explain this photographic evidence, they only "explained it away."

Nix is a motion picture of a man in white clearly in firing position at the moment of impact. He is at the 6 inch horizontal break in the retaining wall, with a car (landau roof) directly behind him.........and where that car was is hotly contested.

shanet

looking for answers

(Robardeau, what do you think?)

Edited December 3, 2004 by Shanet Clark

[Tim Carroll]

Tim, maybe you should assemble a time line of these four photos.

The HSAC didn't explain this photographic evidence, they only "explained it away."

Nix is a motion picture of a man in white clearly in firing position at the moment of impact.  He is at the 6 inch horizontal break in the retaining wall, with a car (landau roof) directly behind him.........and where that car was is hotly contested.

shanet

looking for answers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really have that much problem with Don's placement of the car, as it is not adjacent to the gunman figure. If you look at my re-creation of the Nix perspective, it's easy to see how cars would have been visible from his telephoto'd vantage point. Separating the gunman from the car is the key to the perspective. As for time lines, Don Roberdeau has this stuff "timestamped" on his site. Here's another perspective of Lifton's #5 Man in Moorman:

Tim

[Shanet Clark]

Tim, maybe you should assemble a time line of these four photos.

The HSAC didn't explain this photographic evidence, they only "explained it away."

Nix is a motion picture of a man in white clearly in firing position at the moment of impact.  He is at the 6 inch horizontal break in the retaining wall, with a car (landau roof) directly behind him.........and where that car was is hotly contested.

shanet

looking for answers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really have that much problem with Don's placement of the car, as it is not adjacent to the gunman figure. If you look at my re-creation of the Nix perspective, it's easy to see how cars would have been visible from his telephoto'd vantage point. Separating the gunman from the car is the key to the perspective. As for time lines, Don Roberdeau has this stuff "timestamped" on his site. Here's another perspective of Lifton's #5 Man in Moorman:

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this Moorman? Isn't this to far to the right to be the same as Nix's figure, who is at the break in the wall........?

[Tim Carroll]

Is this Moorman? Isn't this to far to the right to be the same as Nix's figure, who is at the break in the wall........?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's hard for me to figure; I'm no photogrammertist, and my re-creation with my wife standing at Nix's position and me at the vertical line of the pergola shows me not in line with the rise in the wall. I don't agree that the classic gunman figure is precisely in line with the rise - there is a bright reflection at the rise that is much wider than the wall - and the gunman figure does appear to the right of it. However, in hindsight, it appears to me that the location upon which I relied for Nix's position was too far east. And then of course, as for Moorman, that is a different angle. I feel confident that I have proven the analysis requiring that the gunman would have to be 9' high to be invalid.

Tim

Edited December 4, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Shanet Clark]

Oh, yes, I agree that the scale is normal, and by that I mean that the classic gunman, fairly close to the wall is normal size. If he was way back in the parking lot, then, yes he would have been a giant. But he is close to the wall. You were too far to the right in your re-enactment to be where the Nix classic gunman was.

We have been talking about some pictures without enough clarification, and I don't have them...could you clarify which is which? Is the highlighted figure (cutout) in Moorman?Which one is the Bell photo? I know we have limited graphics allotments, but I think you would seriously improve your argument by laying out the photos with identification...I'm confused and I have been following all this closely. Bill Miller thinks the classic gunman is light and shadow (like the HSAC 1977 conclusions) and Jack White thinks the classic gunman is "sunspots and retouching" but I think the photo evidence shows a marksman, especially Nix--and the two blow-ups, but I don't know their origin (Bell? Moorman?) Sorry, just looking for clarification. Also where did you get the facing right profile? Finally, I think the car is closer in to the wall, the man and the car look to be close together, I know you separate them, but my point is yes, the gunman is at the wall, and the car is close in behind him, if that was physically possible...

glad you're still with us

Shanet

...........(where is Roberdeau?)........

[Denis Morissette]

Oh, yes, I agree that the scale is normal, and by that I mean that the classic gunman, fairly close to the wall is normal size.  If he was way back in the parking lot, then, yes he would have been a giant.  But he is close to the wall. You were too far to the right in your re-enactment to be where the Nix classic gunman was.

We have been talking about some pictures without enough clarification, and I don't have them...could you clarify which is which? Is the highlighted figure (cutout) in Moorman?Which one is the Bell photo? I know we have limited graphics allotments, but I think you would seriously improve your argument by laying out the photos with identification...I'm confused and I have been following all this closely.  Bill Miller thinks the classic gunman is light and shadow (like the HSAC 1977 conclusions) and Jack White thinks the classic gunman is "sunspots and retouching" but I think the photo evidence shows a marksman, especially Nix--and the two blow-ups, but I don't know their origin (Bell? Moorman?) Sorry, just looking for clarification. Also where did you get the facing right profile? Finally, I think the car is closer in to the wall, the man and the car look to be close together, I know you separate them, but my point is yes, the gunman is at the wall, and the car is close in behind him, if that was physically possible...

glad you're still with us

Shanet

                   ...........(where is Roberdeau?)........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I told you. Don has a lot of money. He is very busy right now spending it away. This Moorman blow-up was made by Lifton's friend, Ray Marcus in the 60's. I have a circa 1968 Los Angeles Free Press article about details on that blow-up that I will post this week-end.

Edited December 4, 2004 by Denis Morissette

[Shanet Clark]

I just spent about an hour watching a video (pixilated) version of the NIX film, that Tim Carroll sent me via email.

1. Very slow limousine, with motorcycles dropping back to safety. Walking speed during the ambush. Either criminally negligent, negligently criminal or both.

2. Nix shows the headshot. A white mass (brain and bone) is visible in a frame or two...this material is tracked by Jacqueline Kennedy and she follows it back, like in Zapruder. Agent Hill appears to catch or scoop this object as he runs and jumps aboard.

If Kennedy was shot from behind, why does his skull material fly back onto the rear hood?

3. Classic gunman is visible throughout, tracking the limo. There is a slight brightness at the headshot frames, apparently a subdued muzzle-flash.

4. Zapruder and his assistant are visible.

5. The classic gunman and the carhood are visible throughout, well-lit with a dark background behind them under the tree. Both the marksman and the vehicle are close to the wall. They are not back in the shadows, but up near the retaining wall.

6. The gunman is really in classic stance, with elbows up, head down. This is not a shadow on the wall. Mainly white, but fleshtones are also seen.

7. Only after the headshot is delivered does the 1963 Secret Service limousine accelarate. Slowly, so Hill can catch up and mount the rear bumper. How fast would you be driving if someone could catch you from behind like that?

8. Nix, for some reason, returns to the gunman (and car) and continues filming this spot after the limousine rolls off to the left. The marksman is now looking to his right.

Edited December 4, 2004 by Shanet Clark

[Tim Carroll]

They are not back in the shadows, but up near the retaining wall.

The gunman is really in classic stance, with elbows up, head down. This is not a shadow on the wall. Mainly white, but fleshtones are also seen.

Nix, for some reason, returns to the gunman (and car) and continues filming this spot after the limousine rolls off to the left. The marksman is now looking to his right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shanet:

It is all I have hoped for that someone would take a fresh look at this too easily dismissed issue. One thing I know in my postmodern deconstruction is that the car could not have been "up near the retaining wall." The odds of a proportional gunman being in the right place at the right time are not dismissable, in my book. The HSCA did not disprove the classic gunman; Josiah Thompson's interview with Sitzman reveals something concealed, and when you factor in the original interviews in which Zapruder and Sitzman declared that a shot came from behind and to the right, the case for a proportional classic gunman equates to whether you believe that Zapruder and Sitzman were present on a pedestal that my wife and I refrained from climbing atop due to the difficulty. Was Sitzman wearing nylons? You can't get on top of that pedestal without kneeling first. And why climb up there? There was the entire Plaza with hardly any spectators from which to choose a location. It's too much effort for the anticipated gain. Even according to Jack White, the presence of the classic gunman can be equally equated to the presence of Zapruder and Sitzman.

Then, after the shooting, Nix pans back to the gunman, who is in profile and "is now looking to his right."

Tim

Edited December 4, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Antti Hynonen]

Shanet Clark Posted Today, 06:23 AM

I just spent about an hour watching a video (pixilated) version of the NIX film, that Tim Carroll sent me via email.

1. Very slow limousine, with motorcycles dropping back to safety. Walking speed during the ambush. Either criminally negligent, negligently criminal or both.

2. Nix shows the headshot. A white mass (brain and bone) is visible in a frame or two...this material is tracked by Jacqueline Kennedy and she follows it back, like in Zapruder. Agent Hill appears to catch or scoop this object as he runs and jumps aboard.

If Kennedy was shot from behind, why does his skull material fly back onto the rear hood?

END QUOTE

Jackie carries a piece of JFK's skull in her hand all the way to Parkland and hands it to Dr. Clark, I think, one of the Doctor's anyhow. She says something like "here you are", and insinuates through her action that the Dr. might be able to use this piece to help JFK in some way.

The head snap and the location of the debris is key evidence proving a conspiracy and multiple gunmen. Motorcycle police officer Bobby Hargis got sprayed with JFK's brain matter and skull pieces with such force that he thought he got shot. (He was riding immediately behind the limo on Jackie's side)

Edited December 4, 2004 by Antti Hynonen

[Alan Healy]

Who were the other two people besides Emmett Hudson on the stairs on the knoll?

Are they not on your map? I can't  see any names there.

Wim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wim,

these two fellows have never been identified.

Personally, I feel that both of them may well have been involved with the "security" needed for the shooter/s behind them.

At least the first guy.

No one reacts that quickly to seeing someones head blown apart by turning & running towards the source of the shot & without even looking at what they're running into.

The man in red, stood below Hudson, I am less certain about but this is what he does from what I can put together.

At the time of the head shot he freezes, stops clapping & gives a "wow" expression(Muchmore film). He is next seen(two seconds later?) as Nix pans left, heading up the steps as the first guy is just disappearing into the shadows. As he reaches Hudson, he "jumps" onto the step, almost childlike & turns back to look at the limo.

What happens next is unclear but he is next seen with Hudson four steps further up, with them both on the ground.

Hudson told us;

Mr. HUDSON. No, sir. I'll tell you--this young fellow that was sitting there with me---standing there with me at the present time, he says, "Lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay and he kept on repeating, "Lay down," so he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and when I was close to the ground--you could tell the shot was coming from above and kind of behind.

(end quote)

So in my mind I see this young guy "looking after" Hudson & making sure(& it does sound like the guy was making sure) he didn't go anywhere he wasn't welcome.

I'm aware that these actions could be that of an innocent, I'm just saying.

Regards.

Alan

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hudson.htm

Edited December 10, 2004 by Alan Healy