Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) "This guy "stars" alongside Blackdogman in Willis5, so no, they were not the same dude." Alan, Alan. Willis took 12 photographs. Willis 5 is the only one to show the BDM. In the next photograph - number 6 - the BDM has gone and the standing/ walking man appears. The two do not 'star' together in any one photograph.Thus my question. If the two appeared together in any one photograph obviously they could not be the same 'dude' and my question would be have been unnecessary and indeed - silly. See Matthew Smith's book 'JFK The Second Plot' which features both photographs juxtaposed with notes. I have tried to find Willis 5 on the web but can only find a small black and white version which, although small even shows only the BDM and not the standing/ walking man. I have seen the big enlarged colour Willis 5 on the web but cannot find it at the moment. The small Willis 5 photograph can be seen at a webpage called: The Guns of Dallas, by L_ Fletcher Prouty.htm EBC Edited February 7, 2005 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Here is a link to Willis 5. Both men who were standing on the steps with Hudson are seen in the photo. Interestingly, Hudson himself is not. Presumably he is behind the man standing highest on the steps, yet no part of Hudson is visible. http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri2/5700.jpg Why would Hudson be standing with the man on his right completely blocking his view of the president? Wouldn't Hudson at least stick his head forward into view, or take a step backward or forward, to try to get a look? It is tempting to suggest that Hudson was BDM, having gone up the steps for some reason (he was, after all, the groundskeeper - maybe he even picked up a Coke bottle off the sidewalk and set it on the wall) and was about to come back down when the photo was taken. But Hudson was wearing a white cap and shirt. He also testified that he sat on the steps by the man on his right till the motorcade turned onto Elm, and then they stood up. No mention of going up and down the steps. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Here is a link to Willis 5. Both men who were standing on the steps with Hudson are seen in the photo. Interestingly, Hudson himself is not. Presumably he is behind the man standing highest on the steps, yet no part of Hudson is visible. You got that right, Ron. Parts of Hudson are visible when one knows what to look for. For instance ... note the arm posture on the man on the steps closest to Willis and compare that to Hudson seen in Moorman, Nix, and Muchmore. If you assumed that the man in Willis had arms that extended that far back and then bent back so to place his hand on his hips - just imagine how long his arms would be if hanging straight down to his sides. The point I am making it that Hudson's coat is blending in with the man's coat nearest to Willis and it gives the impression we are seeing only one man with a coat. Also look behind the closest man's knees and you will see the sag in Hudson's pants sticking outward. Let me know if you have trouble finding it and I will point it out to you as soon as I can. Why would Hudson be standing with the man on his right completely blocking his view of the president? Wouldn't Hudson at least stick his head forward into view, or take a step backward or forward, to try to get a look? Keep in mind that the Willis camera captured about a 1/100th or less of a moment in time. A slip second later and Hudson may very well have leaned forward. I might also add that we cannot see the South side of the subjects well enough to tell if Hudson still had a view East when Willis took his photograph, so we do not really have all the needed information to know if Hudson could see JFK coming at that point or not. It is tempting to suggest that Hudson was BDM, having gone up the steps for some reason (he was, after all, the groundskeeper - maybe he even picked up a Coke bottle off the sidewalk and set it on the wall) and was about to come back down when the photo was taken. But Hudson was wearing a white cap and shirt. He also testified that he sat on the steps by the man on his right till the motorcade turned onto Elm, and then they stood up. No mention of going up and down the steps. I believe that Muchmore's film picks up about 3 seconds after Willis took his photograph and she is panning the steps and when Hudson comes into view he is stationary with no sign of having just been running down the stairs. There is no evidence IMO that shows Hudson doing anything other than what he said he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Willis took 12 photographs. Willis 5 is the only one to show the BDM. Willis 5 is actually the 7th photo he had taken. After the assassination - Willis sold sets of slides and the one showing the BDM was the 5th slide in that set and thus "Willis 5" was what it was then called when referring to that particular photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Bill, Thanks for the clarification details on the Willis photographs' numbering and sequence. EBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Ron, Thanks for the link to the Willis photo. EBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Alan,I get a "Forbidden" message when I try the above link, but I went back and looked at the attachment in your earlier post, and yes there are horizontal lines in the TKOAP enlargement, so it's from the same photo. That's why I said that a line in the photo seemed to blend in with the hat brim and made it look wider than it was. I found a print copy of the Costella scan, and it does look like the brim is too wide to be a fedora, plus the top of the hat looks flatter. It strikes me as odd than anyone who would take that exposed position at the wall for a sinister purpose would wear some distinctive kind of hat while doing so, as if hoping for attention. In any case, the only "distinctive hat" I've noticed in DP photos is that of the man (misidentified as Jim Braden IMO) with the x's on his hat band. But he is not in dark clothing. The face that I thought could be discerned in the Groden enlargement is gone both in your blow-up and in the Costella scan. The bright spot was too much to the side of this "face" to be a muzzle flash, but if it's not really the man's face seen in the dark area then I think the possibility that the spot is a muzzle flash still exists. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ron, I know it is an exposed position(as is Badgemans) but I would much rather take my chances from behind this little wall than to sit on the sixth floor of a bulilding & rely solely on luck to help me escape. If you pop up from behind this wall, take your shot then scramble away while your compatriates around you are protecting you, it's no biggy IMO. But this has always been a problem for researchers, they rule him out because he is easily seen, they can't look beyond that. It is interesting about this guys hat brim. If you take the brim away from John Costellas' scan you are left with something with a stricking resemblance to an overseas hat! Doesn't work for me though. Thanks again. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 "This guy "stars" alongside Blackdogman in Willis5, so no, they were not the same dude."Alan, Alan. Willis took 12 photographs. Willis 5 is the only one to show the BDM. In the next photograph - number 6 - the BDM has gone and the standing/ walking man appears. The two do not 'star' together in any one photograph.Thus my question. If the two appeared together in any one photograph obviously they could not be the same 'dude' and my question would be have been unnecessary and indeed - silly. See Matthew Smith's book 'JFK The Second Plot' which features both photographs juxtaposed with notes. I have tried to find Willis 5 on the web but can only find a small black and white version which, although small even shows only the BDM and not the standing/ walking man. I have seen the big enlarged colour Willis 5 on the web but cannot find it at the moment. The small Willis 5 photograph can be seen at a webpage called: The Guns of Dallas, by L_ Fletcher Prouty.htm EBC <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Willis5 does indeed show both Blackdog & the man in the red shirt who you are talking about. I'll post a real nice blow-up of the Willis5 steps for you soon. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 (edited) Alan, It occurred to me that BDM could be wearing a state trooper's hat. But I checked the Texas Dept of Public Safety website, and Texas state troopers wear white hats. At least they do now. Could they have worn dark hats and uniforms in 1963? No theory about BDM is entirely satisfactory. If it's a shooter and the photo shows a muzzle flash, how is it that we also see a muzzle flash associated with Badge Man? How is it possible that momentary muzzle flashes were being caught around the Grassy Knoll using still cameras? I'll buy one muzzle flash, but not two of them caught back to back. Of course BDM could still be a shooter, and what we see is not a muzzle flash. Would a shooter suddenly appear at the wall and then make a quick getaway, hopefully unnoticed, while all the while wearing a distinctive hat? Would he not be dressed as inconspicuously as possible? He could be in a cop's dark uniform, but cops don't wear hats like that. My feeling is that the most likely explanation of BDM is the simplest. (Imagine that.) We know from interviews of Zapruder's secretary Marilyn Sitzman that a young black couple who had been eating lunch was behind the wall at the time of the shooting. I see no reason for Sitzman to invent this couple. And a paper bag and food wrappers were indeed found on the bench where Sitzman said the couple sat, and one of their bottles was found on the wall. It makes sense that this couple would have moved to the front end of the wall as the president approached. What we see in BDM is probably both of them, perhaps the woman leaning forward on the wall and the man standing above and behind her, blended together in the blur of the photo. And they ran away when shots were fired, very possibly when a shot from the knoll came right past them from behind. Sitzman said she thought they were still sitting on the bench at the time of the head shot and ran away after smashing a Coke bottle. When Thompson asked her if they had moved to the front of the wall, she said she didn't think so but that it was possible. I'm sure they would have moved to the front, as it was simply not natural for anyone to stay seated on the bench while the president was coming by, instead of getting up and moving forward (they had the whole wall to themselves) for a better view if not out of simple respect. And the couple quickly disappeared out of panic. Ron Edited February 9, 2005 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 (edited) My feeling is that the most likely explanation of BDM is the simplest. (Imagine that.) We know from interviews of Zapruder's secretary Elizabeth Sitzman that a young black couple who had been eating lunch was behind the wall at the time of the shooting. I see no reason for Sitzman to invent this couple. And a paper bag and food wrappers were indeed found on the bench where Sitzman said the couple sat, and one of their bottles was found on the wall.It makes sense that this couple would have moved to the front end of the wall as the president approached. What we see in BDM is probably both of them, perhaps the woman leaning forward on the wall and the man standing above and behind her, blended together in the blur of the photo. And they ran away when shots were fired, very possibly when a shot from the knoll came right past them from behind. When would a black couple move to the South wall because Betzner took his photo before the first shot rang out and the BDM is already in position. Willis has a slightly different angle to the BDM and there are no two people being seen. Has anyone ever considered that an overseas cap that looks like a puptent sitting on someones head would show two points that look like 'dog ears' when viewed at a particular angle? Once again is an overlay transparency where the BDM shade line has been overlaid onto the figure in the Moorman photo. Keep in mind that Rosemary Willis has said that she saw a figure standing beyond the wall and she took her attention away from a ferw seconds only to look back and he was now gone. Yarborough happened to be looking at the guy when the individual dove to the ground and went behind the wall. This explains why Rosemary did not see him when she looked back again and why she didn't know where he had gone. The overlay shows the shadow outline closes to the street remaining the same on both individuals. Keeping in mind that if this is the same person, then he has turned his body to his right between photos as he tracked the limo and in doing so he would have rolled his left shoulder out of the sun and into the shade line of the tree passing over him. As I have said before - I have seen images of people wash out of a photo when the image is lightened, but I have never seen where lightening a photo actually invented one out of nothing. Edited February 8, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 When would a black couple move to the South wall because Betzner took his photo before the first shot rang out and the BDM is already in position. They move into that position before Betzner took his photo. Willis has a slightly different angle to the BDM and there are no two people being seen. It could be just the woman, and the man stayed on the bench, as if he didn't care. I don't know. Once again is an overlay transparency where the BDM shade line has been overlaid onto the figure in the Moorman photo. Keep in mind that Rosemary Willis has said that she saw a figure standing beyond the wall and she took her attention away from a ferw seconds only to look back and he was now gone. I haven't seen Rosemary Willis's statement. Can you tell me where it's found? Yarborough happened to be looking at the guy when the individual dove to the ground and went behind the wall. This explains why Rosemary did not see him when she looked back again and why she didn't know where he had gone. Yarborough later said that the man he saw dive to the ground could not have been up on the knoll. There is thus confusion about whom Yarborough saw. Several people hit the ground in the plaza. The overlay shows the shadow outline closes to the street remaining the same on both individuals. Keeping in mind that if this is the same person, then he has turned his body to his right between photos as he tracked the limo and in doing so he would have rolled his left shoulder out of the sun and into the shade line of the tree passing over him. This was previously discussed on Lancer. I am simply unable to see what you see in the overlay/shadow, which is certainly not to say that it isn't there. I just can't see it. But it certainly seems to me that no young soldier such as Arnold would be so wide around the middle as to produce a shadow as wide as the BDM shadow at its base (which would be Arnold's middle) in Betzner or Willis. The shadow is simply too wide, or else Arnold got out of shape in a hurry, IMO. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 It could be just the woman, and the man stayed on the bench, as if he didn't care. I don't know. If Alan Healy is correct - there is no man or woman on the bench when Betzner or Willis took their photos and surely not when Moorman took hers. I haven't seen Rosemary Willis's statement. Can you tell me where it's found? I believe it was Don Roberdeau who shared that information on Lancer when the topic came up over what Yarborough had seen. Yarborough later said that the man he saw dive to the ground could not have been up on the knoll. There is thus confusion about whom Yarborough saw. Several people hit the ground in the plaza. You are partially correct, but you have not told the whole story. In 1978, Ralph Yarborough contacted Earl Golz about the sevice man above the knoll that dove to the ground as told in Golz article. Yarborough had several discussions with Earl Golz and had no doubt as to what he saw at the time. In the mid 80's when Ralph was interviewed by Turner's people he again had no doubt as to what he had seen and where. In 1993 the failing Yarborough became confused suring a conversation an interviewer had with him over what he saw when the "FIRST" shot was fired. In 1993 Ralph W. Yarborough was interviewed at his Austin home by historian David Murph of Texas Christian University. Murph reminded Yarborough that he had been quoted as saying he had witnessed a man on the grassy knoll throw himself down on the ground, and that the man had impressed him as a combat veteran. Yarborough seemed puzzled to hear that his words had been applied to someone standing on the grassy knoll. That couldn’t possibly be correct, he insisted repeatedly. “Remember where I was in the motorcade — with the Johnsons,” he cautioned Murph, “too far back to have been able to see anyone [on the knoll] drop to the ground when firing began.” What confused Yarborough was when he was asked about what he saw when the firing began. You see, when you look at Altgens #6 you will see that Ralph is unaware that a shooting is underway. At least two shots had been fired by Z255 when Altgens #6 was taken. In Altgens #6, Ralph is smiling and happy. The first shot Yarborough recognized was when JFK's head exploded and that is when he saw the figure above the wall dive to the ground. In 1993 when his health was failing he got confused over the "FIRST" shot scenario because he knew by that time that his car was not in position to see the knoll when the actual shooting had began. The interviewer missed this point and the rest is history. If for some reason that you doubt what I have just stated, then go look at Altgens #6 and look at Ralph at that moment in time. Either Ralph isn't aware that a shooting has already taken place or he is happy that JFK is being shot at. This was previously discussed on Lancer. I am simply unable to see what you see in the overlay/shadow, which is certainly not to say that it isn't there. I just can't see it. But it certainly seems to me that no young soldier such as Arnold would be so wide around the middle as to produce a shadow as wide as the BDM shadow at its base (which would be Arnold's middle) in Betzner or Willis. The shadow is simply too wide, or else Arnold got out of shape in a hurry, IMO.Ron Arnold is not casting a shadow - he is standing in a shadow being cast by a tree on the knoll. The BDM looks so wide because of the lens Betzner was using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Arnold is not casting a shadow - he is standing in a shadow being cast by a tree on the knoll. I understand that Arnold is not casting a shadow. He is standing in a shadow. My point is, a shadow on a person standing where Arnold is standing can only be as small or as large as the person is. That is the only visible shadow, the rest of the shade will be on the ground, as there is nothing directly behind him to catch and extend the shadow we see on him. So the only shadow we see is what is on Arnold, it is the same width as Arnold, and IMO this shadow is too wide to be Arnold or any normal-sized person. The BDM looks so wide because of the lens Betzner was using. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have no answer for that, as I know nothing about lenses. I'm only judging by what I see in the photo. Are other objects in the photo also widened accordingly? Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 (edited) So the only shadow we see is what is on Arnold, it is the same width as Arnold, and IMO this shadow is too wide to be Arnold or any normal-sized person. The Arnold/BDM is what the shadow is being cast upon, so the person is as wide as the shadow because there is nothing else for the shadow to be hitting. In the BDM image the left shoulder is extended out past the shadow and into the light. It was only when Arnold turned to his right to face Moorman that his left shoulder rolled into the shade. The shade line that I referred to is marked below. Edited February 9, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 (edited) A close up of the men on the steps in Willis5 for Eugene. I hope you can see the red area that has, up until now, always been associated with the red shirt of the man you were refering to & who we see in this same position on the steps in Moorman, Bell, Muchmore, Nix, Bond etc. A really good full copy of Willis5 is rare in my experience, especially of the quality of the above crop. If you look at my blow-up it shows hardly any blur in this section of the photo but when you see the same size blow-up of Blackdog, it is hardly recognisable as a human being. We know Phil Willis said he took this photo in reaction to hearing a shot & this could explain some of the blur above the wall but it also suggests Blackdog was moving I think. The other thing strange about this section of Willis5 of course, is that only two men are seen on the steps & as Ron mentioned & others have theorised if he(Emmett Hudson) isn't standing behind that other man, then Emmett must be Blackdog. After capturing this close-up, I have been wondering whether it is more likely that Emmett is behind the lampost & small sign than behind this other guy. Alan Edited February 9, 2005 by Alan Healy 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