Lee Forman Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Eugene,I too have come to doubt Badgeman's existence. It doesn't make much sense that he would choose that place to shoot from, unless all other places were taken. As I have said in another thread, the "puff of smoke" also looks suspiciously like other blotches of light in the photo. I think the most sensible explanation of Black Dog Man is that it's the black couple that was seen in that area by Sitzman. They were moving when the photos were taken, thus blurred, and they ran away. And it's a shame that they have never come forward. Ron Did anyone ever interview the Chism's? I would like to know if they had their lunch on the bench before moving to the area by the sidewalk? You could also stand on the pedestal and have someone fire a round from behind you - from the area of the Pergola shelter - in between the fence and the shelter, and at the tree, behind the fence, using 1963 WerBell's furnished silencers and see if it sounds like a coke bottle breaking. Or take a few photos using the same model and year polaroid used by Mary Moorman from her position at 12:30pm on 11/22/06 and have people standing in the various locations and do comparisons. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Yesterday you said the BDM was some guy in a black cape - today you say he is a black couple ... maybe tomorrow he will be Gordon Arnold. It was a bad joke, referencing also V in the famous movie. I have previously stated why I don't think it was Arnold, and I don't think you were able to provide a satisfactory answer. Until you do, I will remain unpersuaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Gillespie Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 "I think the most sensible explanation of Black Dog Man is that it's the black couple that was seen in that area by Sitzman. They were moving when the photos were taken, thus blurred, and they ran away. And it's a shame that they have never come forward. Ron " ________________________ Ron, In "JFK: The Case For Conspiracy" (Groden) that wall was the 'focus' of one of the DVD segments - the Muchmore film, I believe. It shows two persons behind the wall with heads bobbing up and down and brief glimpses of torsos. Curiously, both images show heads with short hair, so they appear to be males - and Caucasion males at that - and (here we go again, but I swear to this) the person on the right is revealed toward the end of the segment as yet another...Badgeman. I couldn't believe it, either. Run this thing slowly, dolly up, and you'll have to come to that conclusion. There was narration mentioning shots from there but this aspect is not referenced by Groden. However, I still believe the images are of the couple you mention, above. On the DVD, Groden identifies every reflection and fim anomaly as gunfire. Damn. These films are more than significant and we don't need to be told all that much about what we can see with our very own eyes, unless it's absolutely necessary. It still amazes me that there remains a school of thought that shots came from behind this outer wall, an area that would have exposed snipers starkly to numerous spectators left of the wall and on the overpass. Regards, JG "Or take a few photos using the same model and year polaroid used by Mary Moorman from her position at 12:30pm on 11/22/06 and have people standing in the various locations and do comparisons." ...and hope for sunshine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 It still amazes me that there remains a school of thought that shots came from behind this outer wall, an area that would have exposed snipers starkly to numerous spectators left of the wall and on the overpass. Regards, JG "Or take a few photos using the same model and year polaroid used by Mary Moorman from her position at 12:30pm on 11/22/06 and have people standing in the various locations and do comparisons." ...and hope for sunshine. Agreed on the sunshine. Anyway...the retaining wall - it would depend upon the location behind the wall, the location of the sign in 1963, vegetation conditions, location on the underpass, etc. Plus - the Hicks shooter location, as I understand it, is much further down, and would not be seen from the top of the underpass at all. It's also pretty far away... Personally, I still believe it's a camera crew behind the wall. A shooter would have been behind the fence, at the tree - where Ed Hoffman saw him, and then behind Zapruder, where Hicks said he was located - close to the pergola hut shelter. But I couldn't say, that's how it is for 100% certainty. There is another factor which a lot of folks seem to forget - the focus of people's attention was on the motorcade. Not on where a shooter may have been lurking. That was the job of the SS. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 (edited) It still amazes me that there remains a school of thought that shots came from behind this outer wall, an area that would have exposed snipers starkly to numerous spectators left of the wall and on the overpass.Regards, JG "Or take a few photos using the same model and year polaroid used by Mary Moorman from her position at 12:30pm on 11/22/06 and have people standing in the various locations and do comparisons." ...and hope for sunshine. The problem that exist for using a camera like Moorman's and replicating her photo is that I do not think the same type of film is available any more and the tree foliage would have to be the same so to difuse the light in the same manner. Anyway...the retaining wall - it would depend upon the location behind the wall, the location of the sign in 1963, vegetation conditions, location on the underpass, etc. Plus - the Hicks shooter location, as I understand it, is much further down, and would not be seen from the top of the underpass at all. The photo shown in this thread from the overpass is taken from atop of the Main Street section. The view from where Holland and so many others had stood during the assassination (the Elm Street section) did not have an obstructed view of where Arnold/BDM stood. I might also add that the Franzen's were across the street and would have had a clear view of this area, not to mention Summers, Altgens, Hill, Moorman, Brehm, Hill and Tony Foster as she walked towards the limo at the time of the kill shot. A simple glance from Sitzman or the Hester's would have allowed a clear view of this area. The Willis photo shows us what people and the SS agents would have seen while watching the limo glide down Elm Street, thus they would have been looking directly at the Arnold/BDM figure during the shooting. As appealing as it may saound - there is no evidence of anyone being on that particular area of the walkway other than Gordon Arnold/BDM. Personally, I still believe it's a camera crew behind the wall. A shooter would have been behind the fence, at the tree - where Ed Hoffman saw him, and then behind Zapruder, where Hicks said he was located - close to the pergola hut shelter. But I couldn't say, that's how it is for 100% certainty. Ed Hoffman never saw the individuals at the Badge Man location. The reason for this is quite simple .... the cars parked along that area and the overhanging tree foliage created cover for those standing up near the fence. In the series "TMWKK" there was an editing job done in the film that made it appear that Ed was referencing the Badge Man location ... this was unfortuneate and misleading to those who have never spoke to Ed. The man Ed saw was at the location where Holland saw the smoke come through the trees. His location has often been referenced as "the Hat Man location". The Hat Man location is marked below .... Edited March 24, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 It still amazes me that there remains a school of thought that shots came from behind this outer wall, an area that would have exposed snipers starkly to numerous spectators left of the wall and on the overpass. Regards, JG "Or take a few photos using the same model and year polaroid used by Mary Moorman from her position at 12:30pm on 11/22/06 and have people standing in the various locations and do comparisons." ...and hope for sunshine. The problem that exist for using a camera like Moorman's and replicating her photo is that I do not think the same type of film is available any more and the tree foliage would have to be the same so to difuse the light in the same manner. Anyway...the retaining wall - it would depend upon the location behind the wall, the location of the sign in 1963, vegetation conditions, location on the underpass, etc. Plus - the Hicks shooter location, as I understand it, is much further down, and would not be seen from the top of the underpass at all. The photo shown in this thread from the overpass is taken from atop of the Main Street section. The view from where Holland and so many others had stood during the assassination (the Elm Street section) did not have an obstructed view of where Arnold/BDM stood. I might also add that the Franzen's were across the street and would have had a clear view of this area, not to mention Summers, Altgens, Hill, Moorman, Brehm, Hill and Tony Foster as she walked towards the limo at the time of the kill shot. A simple glance from Sitzman or the Hester's would have allowed a clear view of this area. The Willis photo shows us what people and the SS agents would have seen while watching the limo glide down Elm Street, thus they would have been looking directly at the Arnold/BDM figure during the shooting. As appealing as it may saound - there is no evidence of anyone being on that particular area of the walkway other than Gordon Arnold/BDM. Personally, I still believe it's a camera crew behind the wall. A shooter would have been behind the fence, at the tree - where Ed Hoffman saw him, and then behind Zapruder, where Hicks said he was located - close to the pergola hut shelter. But I couldn't say, that's how it is for 100% certainty. Ed Hoffman never saw the individuals at the Badge Man location. The reason for this is quite simple .... the cars parked along that area and the overhanging tree foliage created cover for those standing up near the fence. In the series "TMWKK" there was an editing job done in the film that made it appear that Ed was referencing the Badge Man location ... this was unfortuneate and misleading to those who have never spoke to Ed. The man Ed saw was at the location where Holland saw the smoke come through the trees. His location has often been referenced as "the Hat Man location". The Hat Man location is marked below .... I don't think we are disagreeing here. However, your hatman is where I still see the cop with the rifle, as opposed to a man with a hat - and that is the area I referred to above. If there is a Badgeman character, he is behind the fence, and I still think he could simply be another cameraman. In terms of the location on the underpass - agreed. As I had stated, it would dependent upon a number of variables. The closer to the part of the underpass over Elm, the less you would be able to see of the area of the retaining wall. Your observation about lighting and foliage is a good one. If Beverly Oliver really was Babushka lady, IMO, she should be in a position to tell us exactly what went on up there, since she is staring in that direction, which is directly opposite - yet Oliver says nothing - which is the first reason, IMO, for believing that she is nothing more than an opportunist. And her magic shoes won't buy her even a salad over here. In terms of evidence - I agree again. Since I believe that the record has been sanitized - there is no clear evidence. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Gillespie Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 "I think the most sensible explanation of Black Dog Man is that it's the black couple that was seen in that area by Sitzman. They were moving when the photos were taken, thus blurred, and they ran away. And it's a shame that they have never come forward.Ron" Yesterday you said the BDM was some guy in a black cape - today you say he is a black couple ... maybe tomorrow he will be Gordon Arnold. Bill Gordon Arnold IS a black couple... It still amazes me that there remains a school of thought that shots came from behind this outer wall, an area that would have exposed snipers starkly to numerous spectators left of the wall and on the overpass.Regards, JG "Or take a few photos using the same model and year polaroid used by Mary Moorman from her position at 12:30pm on 11/22/06 and have people standing in the various locations and do comparisons." ...and hope for sunshine. Agreed on the sunshine. Anyway...the retaining wall - it would depend upon the location behind the wall, the location of the sign in 1963, vegetation conditions, location on the underpass, etc. Plus - the Hicks shooter location, as I understand it, is much further down, and would not be seen from the top of the underpass at all. It's also pretty far away... Personally, I still believe it's a camera crew behind the wall. A shooter would have been behind the fence, at the tree - where Ed Hoffman saw him, and then behind Zapruder, where Hicks said he was located - close to the pergola hut shelter. But I couldn't say, that's how it is for 100% certainty. There is another factor which a lot of folks seem to forget - the focus of people's attention was on the motorcade. Not on where a shooter may have been lurking. That was the job of the SS. Lee ___________________ Lee, that overpass shot says a thousand words. Still, there were spectators right on those stairs that led to the back of that wall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 (edited) __________________ Lee, that overpass shot says a thousand words. Still, there were spectators right on those stairs that led to the back of that wall... Yes - but that's also in question. For example, is it nefarious to consider that Emmett Hudson, the DP groundskeeper, was not presented the Moorman photo when he was called to testify? I wouldn't want to place a bet. Chronologically: - Emmett arrives to watch the motorcade - he's on the stairs. - A young man arrives. They sit, they chat, they stand. Young man parked in one of the parking lots - a curiousity in itself. He says he works on Industrial. - Behind Emmett are a bunch of folks, lots of folks, trying to get pictures. - They separate before the arrival of the motorcade. When it's still fairly high up on Elm, shots ring out. Emmett hears 2. The second hits Kennedy in the side of the head. - The young man is lying on the sidewalk. He is urging Emmett repeatedly to lie down. Emmett also goes prone, and the final shot sounds as if it travels over his head. He doesn't witness the result. He also never bothers to mention that the young man bolted like a mule for cover - because he didn't/ You can see Emmett and the young man in aftermath shots. Liebeler has mistakenly opened a can of worms, thinking that Emmett would have noted Zapruder on the pedestal, and no one else. Mr. LIEBELER - Do you see this little pedestal back up here? Mr. HUDSON - Yes. Mr. LIEBELER - Just above the "X" where you were standing? Mr. HUDSON - Yes. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see anybody standing up there that you can remember, durring the time the president went by? Mr. HUDSON - Oh, there was a bunch of people in there, you know, a whole bunch of them - a lot of people in there - a lot of people in here. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you se anybody standing up there taking motion pictures with a movie camera? Mr. HUDSON - Oh, yes; I seen people up there trying to get - taking pictures. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see a man with a movie picture camera? Mr. HUDSON - Not in particular, I didn't. It was such an exciting time - now - I did notice a man back over here on this triangle. Mr. LIEBELER - Standing across Elm Street? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - With a motion picture camera? Mr. HUDSON - Well he had a camera - I don't know whether it was a motion picture camera or not, but he had a camera. The man with the camera could have been James Altgens, or the man with the young woman. IMO, both had cameras. But the problem starts when you view the films and photos. Emmett had to have been lying, or was senile. Or the photos and films are phony. Can't have it both ways. We should see 2 men lying on the ground in Moorman, or at a minimum, one man lying on the ground urging the other to do so - otherwise, something is wrong with the location of the Lincoln and where Kennedy received a shot to his head. We should also see a whole bunch of people up there trying to get - taking pictures. Instead, what we have, is a picture that appears to have added a man next to Hudson that doesn't exist. It isn't his young man, since in Muchmore and Nix, this man appears to run away during the shooting, instead of lying down. The only witness out of the entire plaza to run away. Hudson doesn't ever mention standing with 2 people. 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 down." and he kept 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. If I wanted to divert Hudson's attention to a sloppy altered photographic record, I wouldn't call attention to this photo either. Nice work guys. Stupid on Liebeler's part though. They showed him an Altgens and one of the FBI reinactment photos [laughing]. Classic. The man [filming?] on the stairs has been demonstrated elsewhere, so I'll leave that alone. I prefer to simply say 'he was never identified either.' But he's the reason, IMO, that the photo cannot be trusted. That last crop I posted was from the Moorman found in Boston Traveller Magazine. - lee Edited March 24, 2006 by Lee Forman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 "I have previously stated why I don't think it was Arnold, and I don't think you were able to provide a satisfactory answer. Until you do, I will remain unpersuade." It's ok, Ron ... for if you have not picked up on the things I have pointed out so far, then you probably are not going to be able to follow anything else I have to tell you either. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Yes - but that's also in question. For example, is it nefarious to consider that Emmett Hudson, the DP groundskeeper, was not presented the Moorman photo when he was called to testify? I wouldn't want to place a bet. William Hudson (Emmett's son) told me that his dad had a copy of Moorman's photo that he showed his family and friends when telling them about his experience on the steps. - Behind Emmett are a bunch of folks, lots of folks, trying to get pictures. There is not a shred of evidence that anyone besides Arnold stood behind Hudson with a camera. - They separate before the arrival of the motorcade. If you are talking about the man next to Hudson separating from him - that happened after the kill shot and can be seen on the Nix film. - The young man is lying on the sidewalk. He is urging Emmett repeatedly to lie down. Emmett also goes prone, and the final shot sounds as if it travels over his head. He doesn't witness the result. He also never bothers to mention that the young man bolted like a mule for cover - because he didn't/ You can see Emmett and the young man in aftermath shots. Emmet was standing as JFK's limo raced for the underpass. Emmett never paid any attention to the man who stood next to him as he raced up the steps because Emmett was focused on the President But the problem starts when you view the films and photos. Emmett had to have been lying, or was senile. Or the photos and films are phony. Can't have it both ways. We should see 2 men lying on the ground in Moorman, or at a minimum, one man lying on the ground urging the other to do so - otherwise, something is wrong with the location of the Lincoln and where Kennedy received a shot to his head. Emmett confused the man who came up the steps and told him to get down with the man who had been next to Emmett earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 From the pedestal - Badge Man would have been hidden by the large tree trunk. Bill Miller So the Badgeman was standing to the right of and behind the tree? Would this not make any shot fired from there appear to hit President Kennedy at an almost 45 degree angle? And so how could any shot fired fired from that position appear to come from the right front? Surely it could only hit President Kennedy straight or almost straight right side on? Then there is the problem of the tree's foliage...Would it not have obscured the 'Badgeman's' line of sight? Am I wrong here? Has anyone measured the angle from the position you have shown to President Kennedy's head? EBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 (edited) As the person*** who discovered badgeman and spent more time investigating him than anyone else, I have never said nor believed that his shot was the head shot. I believe he probably missed. But that is not badgeman's importance. Unlike the HSCA conclusion, I think that ANY "second gunman" is indicative of conspiracy. Jack ***as I have related here and other places many times, Gary Mack first saw the BM image while looking at a Moorman slide on a TV monitor. Thinking it looked like a previously unknown man, he asked me to make a copy enlargement and determine whether the image was a man. I made bracketed enlargements and Badgeman or Badge Man (as Gary calls him) was seen clearly for the first time. I later discovered the Hardhatman and Gordon Arnold flanking Badgeman. So the exact story is that Gary first saw the suspicious image, and I did ALL the subsequent PHOTO work, while Gary did extensive research work and contact work. Again, for the final time I hope...Gary first saw it, I did all the photo work leading to conformation of our joint discoveries. Everyone should be aware of this by now. Edited March 25, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 (edited) William Hudson (Emmett's son) told me that his dad had a copy of Moorman's photo that he showed his family and friends when telling them about his experience on the steps. The point I made was the fact that it was not presented to him at the time of his testimony. There is not a shred of evidence that anyone besides Arnold stood behind Hudson with a camera. There is lnot a shred of evidence that Arnold was there at all either -- and although I lean towards believing he was there - I do not believe he is in the position that you locate him in. If you are talking about the man next to Hudson separating from him - that happened after the kill shot and can be seen on the Nix film. How does what is seen in the Nix film in any way line up with what Hudson said? And I am not clear myself on any one 'kill shot.' Emmet was standing as JFK's limo raced for the underpass. Emmett never paid any attention to the man who stood next to him as he raced up the steps because Emmett was focused on the President Did Hudson tell you that? How do you know that? Emmett confused the man who came up the steps and told him to get down with the man who had been next to Emmett earlier. Did Hudson tell you that? Did Hudson's family tell you he said that? Did he also make a mistake on the number of shots he heard, and the sequence? I think we should get back to allowing Eugene to continue on with where he was going on his thread. Eugene - FYI below. Using Don Roberdeau's plat - roughly, these would be the locations of 1. The Nix Classic Gunman, as possibly seen by Hicks and possibly heard by Zapruder [maybe Sitzman, if the breaking of a coke bottle was in reality the use of a silencer and an ejected shell hitting the concrete]. 2. The rough location of the Badgeman - maybe Jack can comment. 3. The rough location of the GKS - muddy footprints, cigarette butts, smoke, Ed Hoffman location, man in Moorman wearing the cop's hat. If you'd like, I can email you photos from the present day taken in and around these locations. lforman23@comcast.net - lee Edited March 25, 2006 by Lee Forman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 So the Badgeman was standing to the right of and behind the tree? Hidden behind the tree from Zapruder's position. Would this not make any shot fired from there appear to hit President Kennedy at an almost 45 degree angle? Yes, it would have hit JFK in the side of the head, but as you may know .... there was said to be a furrow on the south side of Elm Street as told by Mrs. Hartman andc that furrow led back to the Badge Man location. Seeing how I can see no second impact spray to JFK's head on any of the assassination films ... and seeing how the Badge Man seemed to have fired behind the Hoffman shooter ... it seems reasonable that if the furrow Mrs. Hartman seen and said to be made from a bullet by at least one officer on the scene - with its path leading back to the knoll it seems likely that it may have been the missed Badge Man shot. Then there is the problem of the tree's foliage...Would it not have obscured the 'Badgeman's' line of sight? There does not appear to be any tree foliage between Moorman's camera lens and the Badge Man, so I do not see how tree foliage would have been a factor from Badge Man to JFK at the moment Mary took her photograph. Also about the bullets path ... Dr. Clark, I believe it was, had said that a tagental strike to a persons skull by a bullet can cause the bullet to change its path when passing through the head. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 There is lnot a shred of evidence that Arnold was there at all either -- and although I lean towards believing he was there - I do not believe he is in the position that you locate him in. Believe it or not, Lee ... when a man describes an event and gets as many things as Arnold got right that were not substantiated with photos or film until many years later - his statements are "EVIDENCE". How does what is seen in the Nix film in any way line up with what Hudson said? And I am not clear myself on any one 'kill shot.' The kill shot is obviously the shot that blew the President's head open. The Nix film shows the man who was standing next to Hudson - turn and flee up the walkway at the moment JFK was killed. Did Hudson tell you that? How do you know that? I know this because the Nix film shows Hudson turning back to his right to look at the limo going by below him. The Zapruder film caught the back of Emmett's head as he watched the limo speed away. See the clip below ... HUDSON ON THE STEPS HUDSON TURNING BACK TO WATCH THE LIMO GRODEN STANDING AT THE HUDSON LOCATION HUDSON TRACKING THE LIMO AS IT RACED AWAY Emmett confused the man who came up the steps and told him to get down with the man who had been next to Emmett earlier. Did Hudson tell you that? Did Hudson's family tell you he said that? Did he also make a mistake on the number of shots he heard, and the sequence? The assassination films tell me that. It was also learned during the making of the movie "JFK" that depending on where one stood in the plaza would make a difference on what shots they did and did not hear. I think we should get back to allowing Eugene to continue on with where he was going on his thread. Eugene - FYI below. Using Don Roberdeau's plat - roughly, these would be the locations of 1. The Nix Classic Gunman, as possibly seen by Hicks and possibly heard by Zapruder [maybe Sitzman, if the breaking of a coke bottle was in reality the use of a silencer and an ejected shell hitting the concrete]. The "Classic Gunman" has been proven to be nothiong more than light shining through the tree foliage and onto the side of the shelter wall. 3. The rough location of the GKS - muddy footprints, cigarette butts, smoke, Ed Hoffman location, man in Moorman wearing the cop's hat. Not only did Hoffman see one man at the Hat Man's location at the fence, but he said the man was wearing a fedora type hat. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now