Ken Rheberg
-
Posts
182 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ken Rheberg
-
-
I wonder if [blaine] ever found out. . . whether it was true, as it was investigated, that a TV at the IBM office in Dallas showed a film or video of the assassination shortly after it occurred?
Bill,
Are you sure this happened in Dallas? It sounds just like an incident that took place in or around Detroit.
Ken
-
So before the last shot was fired, according to Arnold, he was already on the ground. That means he would have been blocked from view in Moorman by the retaining wall, along with Sitzman's boy and girl who themselves had been in view only seconds before at the top of the stairs as seen in Betzner and Willis. Arnold was not in that spot as confirmed by the TMWKK video frame below. I've added in the approximate locations of where the boy and girl were standing.
Ken
If Arnold's story is true, then he points to where the limo was when JFK was shot in the head. Arnold wasn't precise is saying for sure that the other shot he heard had come after the one that whizzed past his ear, but considering that others also thought they heard a shot(s) after the kill shot as well, then it could also be possible that Arnold did the same. As Kellerman said - there were two blast almost over the top of one another like a sonic boom only 3/18ths of a second apart, thus it is possible that this is what Gordon heard.
Bill
Bill,
To support a Gordon Arnold over-the-head shot fired after the fatal shot to President Kennedy (which would allow Arnold to still be seen in the Moorman photo), you rely on Roy Kellerman who heard two blasts, one almost on top of another. You say it's possible that this is what Arnold heard. Two blasts, like a sonic boom, 3/18ths of a second apart.
Have to disagree with you here. Take a look at Arnold's Oral History at the Sixth Floor Museum. He goes into more detail. There he says that, when he heard the shot go over his head, he had already fallen to the ground, rolled over once, and his face was down. I don't think a person can do all that in 3/18 of a second. If Arnold was there, that last shot, the one that went over his head, had to be the fatal shot that struck the President. Arnold says nothing about seeing Kennedy's head blown apart. About blood and brains. As he continued filming while he was falling to the ground, he just saw Kennedy's head go back. It makes more sense to me that what he saw was Kennedy being hit by an earlier shot. When the shot was fired over Arnold's head, he would have been on the ground behind the retaining wall with the Sitzman kids. They would have "hit the dirt" together when that same shot whizzed by all three of them.
Some have said over the years that Arnold never mentioned seeing those kids, so he must not have been there. Well, in my opinion, he does refer to them in his Oral History. After the shots, he mentions people running up the hill. That would be the Hesters, the Chisms, and the two boys from Stockard Junior High. But most important, he mentions people "running away from where I was at." In other words, from on the ground behind the retaining wall. Thanks to Sitzman, we know who that was. Around 10 seconds after the last shot. The black kids, a boy and girl, between 18 and 21. The ones who were at the top of the stairs in Betzner and Willis just 15 seconds or so before they ran off. And not, by the way, the black man and black woman filmed talking casually behind the wall after the assassination.
I believe Arnold may very well have been up there, as you do. You and I just have a major disagreement over what can be seen in the Moorman photo. In my opinion, there's no Arnold in front of the fence. And no Badge Man and accomplice behind it.
Ken
-
For me, the most compelling evidence for where Gordon Arnold was located at the time of the last shot comes from Arnold himself in his TMWKK video interview. He said:
"And as I was panning down this direction, just as I got to about this position, a shot came right past my left ear, and that meant it would have had to have come from this direction [pointing behind him]. And that's when I fell down. And to me it seemed like a second shot was at least fired over my head. It was, there's a bunch of report going on in the, in this particular area. . ."
So before the last shot was fired, according to Arnold, he was already on the ground. That means he would have been blocked from view in Moorman by the retaining wall, along with Sitzman's boy and girl who themselves had been in view only seconds before at the top of the stairs as seen in Betzner and Willis. Arnold was not in that spot as confirmed by the TMWKK video frame below. I've added in the approximate locations of where the boy and girl were standing.
Bill says:
"All I can say is that the BDM cannot be both a black couple and Arnold..."
And he's right, because Arnold was nowhere near where the couple was standing.
BDM was Sitzman's boy and girl standing side by side at the top of the stairs.
Bill also said:
". . . and the timing of the photographic record doesn't support a black couple running away. . ."
Well, the currently available photographic record doesn't show the couple running away because we have no clear films or photos of that area at the time they ran off -- which was at or about the time the limo went through the triple underpass, according to Sitzman.
I'm going to repeat once again, all this in no way precludes Gordon Arnold from being there.
Ken
-
Great. Now put your cut and paste figure further back from the wall at the top of the steps in both of the Willis and Betzner photos. Then we might have a more accurate idea of how tall the BDM figure really was in comparison to a 5'9" woman in heels.
Ken
Sigh, you don't seem to understand.
Your BDM couple (one is always hidden and didn't watch the motorcade) is 4´7" if
they were standing on the sidewalk. Thats ridiculous.
No, actually, I do understand. You're right. Your conclusion that BDM was 4'7" is absolutely ridiculous. So either rework your math, come up with some alternatives, or drop it altogether if you can't take it seriously.
-
That shot from behind the fence, and behind them, is why they disappeared. . . when they dropped down and took cover behind the retaining wall.
Ken, What am I missing here? There is no "they" according to the Nix film ... only one person is seen in the Nix film print I was able to view and that one person dropped from view after the shot from the fence. Had it not been for Moorman's photo and the Nix print Groden had ... I could accept the possibility that you offer, but they cannot be dismissed. There isd no testimony of anyone seeing the black couple in that area after Sitzman last saw them well before the shooting took place ... if there is, then can someone show it to me?
Bill
FWIW, there are news reports, both radio and newspaper as I recall, of a black couple being seen "scrambling" (I think is how one reads) along a walkway after the shooting.
Todd,
Thanks for joining in. Appreciate your input.
The original report came from AP's Jack Bell, mentioning a man and woman but with no reference to color. On CBS, Walter Cronkite said:
". . . this man and woman we reported earlier were on a hilltop, were seen scrambling to the upper level of a walkway overlooking an underpass which the car was approaching."
In this case, he was referring to the Hesters scrambling around at the top of the knoll. However. . .
Way back in 1964, author Thomas Buchanan referred to radio reports about a fleeing couple who could not have been the Hesters. Buchanan said:
"The first radio reports which followed the assassination said the fleeing couple had been chased by a policeman on a motorcycle, who had raced up an embankment after them, but his pursuit presumably was thwarted by a wire fence which protects a parking lot behind which they were heading."
These reports must have been referring to the young black couple. There's no one else it could be. Not in this context. Meanwhile, the policeman on a motorcyle who was racing in their direction -- giving the appearance that he was chasing them as they fled to the parking lot -- was apparently none other than Bobby Hargis. His "pursuit" up the knoll not only gives us an early confirmation of Sitzman's story but also provides us with an approximate time at which point this couple ran off.
Ken
-
Your illustration may or may not be correct. But why would you cut and paste Sitzman at the end of the wall? No one is saying that she was there. And she was a tall woman, possibly 5'9" according to a relative of hers whom Jack White spoke to per a post of Jack's on this forum back in 2006. And she was wearing high heels.
I did that for height comparison purposes. I thought everybody get it.
Martin
Great. Now put your cut and paste figure further back from the wall at the top of the steps in both of the Willis and Betzner photos. Then we might have a more accurate idea of how tall the BDM figure really was in comparison to a 5'9" woman in heels.
Ken
-
Herb... you gonna say that 59 witnesses who saw and heard shots from the GK also does not "ring true". What about her statement or person leads you to believe her statement doesn't ring true?
For what purpose would Sitzman make that up?
and if "made up" please explain how the coke, bag and broken glass with liquid winds up where they are, who put them there
and finally, since that bottle is not in any other photo... when did the coke bottle get put on the corner of the wall?
Ken...
So it sounds like you are agreeing with me... that BDM is really the boy and girl standing together... that makes sense to me as well which would explain why they disappeared so quickly yet I would place the boy in front based on Rosemary Willis' and other's description...
As far as I can tell, Rosemary's description of the BDM figure never addressed gender. According to the HSCA, it was referred to merely as "a person."
Ken
-
Martin,
Sitzman assumed the kids got up and ran away ... she never said she saw them do it. My understanding is that she only saw them last when the parade entered the plaza.
The Sitzman scaling is not accurate for she was closer to the camera than the BDM, which your illustration didn't allow for.
Bill
Bill, i took care of the scale of course. She is scaled properly proportional to the different distances.
I'am 3D Designer. You are maybe not aware of it.
So, the illustration is correct.
Thanks
Martin
Your illustration may or may not be correct. But why would you cut and paste Sitzman at the end of the wall? No one is saying that she was there. And she was a tall woman, possibly 5'9" according to a relative of hers whom Jack White spoke to per a post of Jack's on this forum back in 2006. And she was wearing high heels.
Anyway, it doesn't change anything. The young couple was standing at the top of the stairs in Betzner and Willis. Then they took cover on the ground behind the wall just before Moorman. Ten seconds or so after the last shot they were gone.
Ken
-
That shot from behind the fence, and behind them, is why they disappeared. . . when they dropped down and took cover behind the retaining wall.
Ken, What am I missing here? There is no "they" according to the Nix film ... only one person is seen in the Nix film print I was able to view and that one person dropped from view after the shot from the fence. Had it not been for Moorman's photo and the Nix print Groden had ... I could accept the possibility that you offer, but they cannot be dismissed. There isd no testimony of anyone seeing the black couple in that area after Sitzman last saw them well before the shooting took place ... if there is, then can someone show it to me?
Bill
1. "...only one person is seen in the Nix film print I was able to view and that one person dropped from view after the shot from the fence."
That's because the young couple was on the ground, behind the wall immediately after Betzner/Willis but before Moorman, then off and running from the area ten seconds or slightly more after the head shot. Time stamp your Willis print and you'll know exactly where they were at that time.
2. "There is no testimony of anyone seeing the black couple in that area after Sitzman last saw them well before the shooting took place. . . (italics mine)"
In the Thompson interview, Sitzman said:
". . . after the last shot I recall hearing and the car went down under the triple underpass there, I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back. . . I don't recall which way they went. . . I heard the bottles crash, and of course I looked that way, to my right, right away, and they were getting up and running towards the back. . . I always have the feeling that they were still sitting on the bench, because when I looked over there, they were getting up from the bench."
So Sitzman did see the young couple after the shots.
Ken
-
No shooter. No Mom. No baby. And no broom. Just two kids, a boy and a girl between 18 and 21 -- as barely older, 23 year-old Marilyn Sitzman described them -- standing together at the top of the stairway.
Ken
Hi Ken!
I thought Sitzman said when she last saw the black couple that they were sitting on the bench. Are you sure yuou cited her correctly?
Bill
Hi Bill!
In the Sitzman interview transcript, Josiah Thompson asks her if she had ever noticed the young couple moving from the bench [where she had observed them prior to the motorcade arriving] to the end of the wall. Her answer is:
"No. They may have. I don't know."
The reason she didn't know if they had moved at any time from the bench to the end of the wall was that her eyes were now following the motorcade. But she concedes that they could have moved. Thompson concurs with her reason for not knowing when he says:
"Of course, you were looking at the parade at that point, and you wouldn't have seen what they did."
Sitzman then wraps up that part of the interview by saying she always felt that the couple had remained sitting on the bench because when she looked back in that area after the shots had been fired they were in the process of getting up from the bench.
It's easy to understand how she might think they were getting up from the bench since they had dropped to the ground right in front of it. When they stood up, it appeared that they had gotten up from the bench which was facing the street between her and them.
By the way, this doesn't preclude Gordon Arnold from also being there.
Ken
-
Ken...
So it sounds like you are agreeing with me... that BDM is really the boy and girl standing together... that makes sense to me as well which would explain why they disappeared so quickly yet I would place the boy in front based on Rosemary Willis' and other's description...
David,
. . . it strikes me as suspicious that JFK was struck in the throat from the front and about a second later a figure with a straight-line feature in the region of their hands suddenly disappears. . .
That shot from behind the fence, and behind them, is why they disappeared. . . when they dropped down and took cover behind the retaining wall.
-
As blatant as the assassination was, I find no reason for an assassin to be that exposed as to be in front of the fence and at the end of the wall and I'd have to think the likes of Craig Roberts would agree that a shooter worth anything would never put himself there... but I am only expressing an opinion... I am not a shooter of any kind.
. . . the HSCA identified a "very distinct straight line feature" in the region
of BDM's hands...did the Mom also bring her broom with her and the baby??
No shooter. No Mom. No baby. And no broom. Just two kids, a boy and a girl between 18 and 21 -- as barely older, 23 year-old Marilyn Sitzman described them -- standing together at the top of the stairway. That's why we don't see them sitting on the bench behind the wall in the Betzner and Willis photos. The girl is blocking a view of most of the boy to her right in much the same way that Running Man blocks a view of most of Emmett Hudson to his right on the steps below. She may have been holding a rolled-up umbrella. After the shots began, but before the last shot, the two kids took cover behind the wall -- which is why we don't see them in the Moorman photo -- and were soon joined there by late twenties, white not black, Running Man who called back, urging 58 year-old Emmett Hudson and 60 year-old Francis Mudd to get down, which they did, Hudson on the steps and Mudd in the grass to his right. Within 10 seconds or so after the last shot, the kids got up and ran to the back, according to Sitzman. However, they weren't getting up from the bench, but rather from the ground behind the wall.
Ken
-
With this email, Gary Mack has apparently issued a subtle correction to both Bill and Martin.
Bill believes Black Dog Man was Gordon Arnold. Remember, Arnold said he was standing on a mound of dirt.
Martin believes Black Dog Man was crouching behind the retaining wall.
Gary has the Black Dog Man figure standing on the sidewalk at the end of the wall.
So Gary's sidewalk placement of the figure eliminates Gordon Arnold as Black Dog Man. Martin's conclusion that Black Dog Man was crouching behind the retaining wall is also dismissed by Gary's opinion that the figure was "standing on the sidewalk."
The placement of this figure in a standing position on the sidewalk at the end of the retaining wall (meaning at the top of the grassy knoll stairway) is the right one as opposed to standing or crouching on the grass inside the corner of the wall as many have erroneously assumed over the years.
Ken
A subtle correction of Gary Mack from Rosemary Willis via the HSCA, emphasis added...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm
Ms. Willis further described the location of [bDM] as the corner section
of the white concrete wall between the area of photographer Abraham Zapruder's
right side and the top of the concrete stairway leading up the center of the grassy
knoll.
Rosemary Willis was there. Gary Mack was not.
Rosemary's placement of BDM corresponds with what we see in the Betzner and Willis photos. In other words, from the perspective of all three, the figure is behind the concrete wall and appears to be inside and flush up against the corner of it. But, again, that's just how it appears. The figure is actually further back behind the wall, outside of but in line with the corner, at the top of the stairway.
-
. . . i don't believe BDM is a shooter nor do i believe this shape is a couple.
I believe it's a person who disappeared suddenly and that makes him suspicious.
Apart from that, he was not standing behind the wall but crouching.
all the best
Martin
. . . I have always believed that the person they call Black Dog Man is Gordon Arnold for the reason that I cannot possibly see how he could have described the events at this location so accurately when he and the rest of the world hadn't yet seen Mack and White's Moorman photo work. I also add the fact that no one in history has ever been able to place Gordon Arnold anywhere else during the shooting and once while just chatting, Jean Hill told me that she recalled seeing a man in uniform near there. No one thing I rely on, but when seen as a whole, its hard to brush it off as not being the most likely scenario.
Bill Miller
PS: Gary Mack was kind enough to respond to my question about the timing of the Muchmore film in relation to the Willis photo. . . Below is the information Gary shared with me on the timing.
"The head shot is frame 42, and frame 19 is one of the last frames that does not show the men on the steps. So counting backward from frame 42 of Muchmore, her first frame = Z271. Muchmore 19, therefore, must = Z290 (after rounding). Since Willis 5 = Z202, the time period in question must be 290 - 202 = 88 frames / 18.3fps = 4.8 seconds. So about 5 seconds elapsed from Willis 5 to the first frames of Muchmore showing the men on the steps. Is that enough time to get from standing on the sidewalk at the end of the wall down to the landing? Of course. Nevertheless, Duncan's diagram is rather convincing."
With this email, Gary Mack has apparently issued a subtle correction to both Bill and Martin.
Bill believes Black Dog Man was Gordon Arnold. Remember, Arnold said he was standing on a mound of dirt.
Martin believes Black Dog Man was crouching behind the retaining wall.
Gary has the Black Dog Man figure standing on the sidewalk at the end of the wall.
So Gary's sidewalk placement of the figure eliminates Gordon Arnold as Black Dog Man. Martin's conclusion that Black Dog Man was crouching behind the retaining wall is also dismissed by Gary's opinion that the figure was "standing on the sidewalk."
The placement of this figure in a standing position on the sidewalk at the end of the retaining wall (meaning at the top of the grassy knoll stairway) is the right one as opposed to standing or crouching on the grass inside the corner of the wall as many have erroneously assumed over the years.
Ken
-
the feinman report CBS ABC COVER ASSASSINATION FEINMAN PDF.
sorry i simply cannot load the file perhaps tomorrow...??? b.
b
Speaking of CBS. . .
David Von Pein:
Until you came along, as far as I can tell, the tape of the CBS network television coverage for 11/22/63 has never been available -- in its entirety -- for one and all to see free of charge.
1. Did you obtain your copy of this tape from CBS?
2. Did you pay for it?
3. Has CBS given you permission to post it on the internet?
4. Do you have the complete tape for that day?
5. More specifically, does the coverage you received for 11/22/63 flow continuously and unedited from the end of Chapter 14 to the beginning of Chapter 15?
For those unfamiliar with it, Chapter 14 ends with Walter Cronkite announcing a ten second station break, then Chapter 15 begins with him resuming the broadcast approximately ten seconds later. A ten second break in coverage at this point is what the CBS transcripts also suggest.
Thanks.
Ken
-
Not entirely my imagination ken.
As i understand it the ground area near the bench has been built up since 1963.
You're saying what you were referring to in the first photo was the area behind the wall (even though it's not in view), wondering if it was your imagination that the wall seemed higher then, when all along you knew that area had been built up over the years? Sorry. Your explanation makes no sense.
-
. . . is it just my imagination, or does the wall seem quite a bit higher than we are used to seeing.
It's just your imagination.
-
Just for clarity. What was the date of the suggestion that it was a woman and baby on Lancer?
The theory that Running Man/Underwood Man and Underwood Woman (Woman Holding Baby) were Marilyn Sitzman's young black couple falls apart based on Josiah Thompson's interview of Sitzman and Emmett Hudson's Warren Commission testimony.
24 year old Sitzman referred to the couple variously as kids, a boy and girl, between 18 and 21. In other words, coming from someone so young herself who should know, this couple was really very young and certainly younger than her.
Neither Running Man nor Underwood Man visually fit this description. These were men who were obviously older than that. Emmett Hudson confirmed this about Running Man when he testified to the Commission that he was in his late twenties.
These two men had nothing to do with Sitzman's "kids" who were behind the retaining wall just before the assassination.
-
sorry about that bill, trying to do more than two things at once, blah this is dated april 28th and appears to be the latest, perhaps it's gone undercover or such...
http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/greg-kinne...s-the-kennedys/
No appologies necessary B.
It's just that people keep posting reports that Paxton and Hanks are making a movie and they're in production right now somewhere, but there's been no reports of who is directing, who is playing any roles, who wrote the script, what's in the script, etc., all of the little items that are routinely released by Hollywood PR people, just like the History Channel's release of the background on their Blackballing Kennedy series.
And I don't BTW, support any of the organized petitions or efforts to stop the production of these shows, as I think they have every right to produce them, though they must be accuratly classified as to what they really are - whether historically accurate or propaganda, disinformation or anti-Kennedy trash.
I also hope that for every dollar spent on Darkside of Kennedys there can be found some money to support the production of real documentary films, major motion pictures (like JFK and 13 Days) and mini-series that tell the truth about the Kennedys and the assassination.
Now if anybody gets a scoop on what Bill Paxton is really up to, what he's working on now, and when the JFK show goes into production, I'd like to know who will direct it, who will play Oswald and Kennedy and when and where it will begin filming.
I'd also like to know what Paxton says in his Oral History at the Sixth Floor.
Thanks to anyone who knows and responds,
BK
Bill,
You've been wanting to know for some time now what Bill Paxton says in his Oral History.
Since you, yourself, have an Oral History on file with the Sixth Floor Museum, and should have a transcript of your own interview, you must know that anyone can obtain an Oral History transcript for a relatively small fee. If an interview hasn't been transcribed yet, then a DVD or CD of that interview can be loaned out for, again, a relatively small fee.
You could have the answer to your Bill Paxton question within a matter of days.
With regards to the "Reclaiming History" mini-series. . .
As of today, according to both Playtone and HBO, this project is NOT currently in production. It is, however, in development as I indicated to you back on 12/22/09. "In development" means they're working on the script. They don't even have an official Production Office set up for it yet at HBO. But Playtone plans for it to be successfully completed, as they do for all their projects, and then televised in November of 2013.
Ken
-
Peter said:
"To me the number of people on the steps has the greatest potential sinister factor."
Peter,
There's nothing sinister at all about the number of people on the steps. The number has always been three. That's just one of the many reasons why the F. Lee Mudd thread was so important.
The three men:
1. A 56 year old man who was caretaker of Dealey Plaza (Emmett Hudson).
2. A "young fellow" in his late twenties who worked "over on Industrial Blvd." in Dallas (name unknown).
3. A 60 year old man in Dallas on business from Shreveport, LA (F. Lee Mudd).
They're all accounted for now, and they can be seen in Moorman, Muchmore and Nix. And yes. Willis, too.
In Willis, our view of Hudson is blocked almost completely by the "young fellow." Still, you can see part of Hudson if you look close enough. Unfortunately, Jack has provided a Willis enlargement with a rectangle around the "young fellow" that partially blocks out Hudson.
Nothing sinister happening on the stairs, Peter. Or behind the retaining wall, for that matter.
Behind the fence is another story altogether.
Ken
-
Pat,
You said:
"But you're wrong, Ken, Hudson was standing on an approximately 5 foot stretch of sidewalk between two groups of stairs. What would you call this flat stretch of concrete? I would call it a sidewalk. The area behind the retaining wall, on the other hand, I would not call a sidewalk. I would call it a slab."
Jack then said (regarding your "sidewalk"):
"It is not a sidewalk. In construction parlance, it is called a LANDING. Landings are very common on stairways, and are usually square (same width as length of treads)."”
So which one is it? Let Emmett Hudson, himself, in his Warren Commission testimony, answer the question:
"Well, I was right along -- you see, the steps come down the steps for a way and then there is a broad place. . ." (Volume VII, p. 560).
Hudson calls it "a broad place." Like Jack's "landing." Not a sidewalk.
Then on the very next page of his testimony, Hudson says the young fellow laid down on "the sidewalk."
Hudson makes a definite distinction between the "broad place" and "the sidewalk."
Pat. You've chosen to call an obvious sidewalk a slab and Hudson's "broad place" a sidewalk. You've got it all backwards and that just prolongs 46+ years of unnecessary confusion.
Ken
-
Pat,
For 30 years I have strongly thought that the man in the red shirt was Hudson’s young fellow.
In his recent post Ken offer’s up a reasonable alternative.
I compliment him on what I think is a great post (thinking out of the box) and you want to poke fun at that with your “Home Improvement” quip? Fine, go ahead.
You mind is apparently a closed one.
Todd
Todd, my mind is, as always, open.
Here is the problem.
Hudson said:
"the young fellow that was sitting there with me—standing there with me at the present time, he says 'Lay down , Mister, somebody is shooting at 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."
This indicates that the "young fellow" lay down on the sidewalk before Hudson got down on the ground The man next to Hudson Ken claims did this not only did not lay down on the sidewalk by Hudson, he ran off in a hurry. So Ken is asking us to invent three events to which there is no evidence...1) that this fellow stopped running when he reached the retaining wall, 2) that he lay down behind the retaining wall, and 3) coaxed Hudson to get down from this location. This is purely Ken's invention. There is nothing in Hudson's statements or in the photographic record to make us think this is true. It is, in fact, far more logical to assume the man speaking to Hudson was the man who remained with Hudson after the shots, the man in red, the man we both agree is Mudd.
But Ken dismisses this based on what he thinks is a fact that the man in red "didn’t lead or direct Hudson from the sidewalk. He was never on or near a sidewalk. He followed Hudson onto the grass."
But this, as far as I can tell, is another Ken invention. The Nix film shows the man in red running up the steps to Hudson. If he lay down on the sidewalk by where Hudson had been standing, then Hudson would have to have laid down next to him on the grass. This is further supported by the Bond photo of the man in red sitting by Hudson but seconds after the shooting.
So...we're forced to ask, which man is more likely to have talked with Hudson and to have expressed concern over Hudson's safety--a man who raced away from him during the shooting who showed no signs of stopping, or a man who raced to him during the shooting, and sat down beside him? I think anyone not pushing an agenda would have to agree that the man in red is far more likely to have been the "young fellow" than the other guy, Racer X.
Now if it can be PROVED the Mudd in Dealey was not a young fellow, well, then perhaps a re-assessment is in order.
But this hasn't happened yet. Instead, we've been stormed with evidence Mudd died in 74 and was 60 years old at the time of the shots, something I remember reading years ago, although I can't recall where... The problem with this is that the same people who claimed Mudd had long been dead had also told us he'd been on the east side of the knoll, and that he'd thought the shots had come from the Dal-Tex. Things we now suspect to have been untrue...
Pat,
Now you've gone from "pretty silly" to inventions and agendas. Why do you have to resort to this? It brings disrepute on your good name.
But then you come up with this surprising affirmation:
"This indicates that the "young fellow" lay down on the sidewalk before Hudson got down on the ground."
That's true. The "young fellow" did lay down on the sidewalk before Hudson got down on the ground. You acknowledge it. But you don't seem to fully comprehend it as you go on to say:
". . . the sidewalk by where Hudson had been standing. . ."
There was no sidewalk near Hudson. It was at the top of the stairs behind the retaining wall.
Once you come to grips with this basic fact, it tends to change everything.
Ken
-
There is a video on Youtube, where a young man claims to be the son of red shirt man, according to the commentator.
No names are mentioned for the son, or red shirt man by the commentator. I watched this video about a month ago, it's a home made production. If I find it, i'll post the link.
Duncan
It better be an old, old video.
-
Forum members:
I've just confirmed through an extremely reliable source close to F. Lee Mudd that Mr. Mudd was indeed a witness to the assassination and that he did die back in 1974. That means he was 60 on 11/22/63. Redshirt Man was an old man.
I'll make sure this is posted on both Mudd threads.
Ken
While it is entirely possible that the Mudd who died in 74 was the Mudd in Dealey Plaza, red shirt man or no, I have found evidence he had a son, Francis Lee Mudd, Jr. who was in his 20's in 1963 and is still alive. I think we can all agree he should be contacted in order to clear this up. I have nominated Tink to do this, but anyone else wishing to do so who can do so without torturing the guy should feel free to forge ahead.
Everything has been cleared up, Pat. The source is beyond reliable. It just doesn't get any better. F. Lee Mudd is deceased. He died back in 1974. This was the same F. Lee Mudd who was in Dealey Plaza that day. It really was no one else but him. And he was 60 years old at the time. Redshirt Man (Mudd) was not Hudson's "young fellow."
Ken
Gerald Blaine The Kennedy Detail Clint Hill book- JFK Requested Bodyguards to Back Off
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Ken Rheberg
Bill,
Please check out this forum thread (post #177) from over two years ago:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12216&st=165
You brought up the same incident back then. You also mentioned the Golden Twenties Tavern and a tavern patron/IBM salesman named Jim Connors. Connors claimed to have seen an assassination film on television at the local IBM offices, probably sometime between 2:30 and 4:00 Dallas time. For some reason you thought this all took place in Dallas. In early 2008, Jerry Dealey tried to locate a Golden Twenties Tavern in Dallas for an "assassination researcher" with no apparent success. I don't know if you were that reseacher. But it wasn't Dallas. It was Detroit as you can see in the FBI memorandum below.
Ken
JFK assassination televised in Detroit.pdf