Whereabouts of Mr. Hudson

[Robin Unger]

Moorman FBI / Muchmore GIF

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

The problem with the Mack/White Moorman crop enhancement, is that what has been presented to the world over the years, is a black and white version of the colourised version, so, what we are seeing is not a true representation of the actual virgin enhancement before colourisation.

Duncan

Some, including myself, have posted the color version because we believe it is what is seen on the one Mack and White used ... that Jack only added color. Also in case people have forgotten ... Gary and Jack used a UPI print that was, and remains, superior to all other versions. Jack has posted his best blowups many times since the 90s. The Smith, FBI, and the drum scan is inferior to the UPI print they used. I seem to recall that they chose the best UPI print. It seems that some scans of the UPI print were better than others and they used the sharpest image in the area corner of the dog leg.

Bill

Edited October 9, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Bill,

The problem with the Mack/White Moorman crop enhancement, is that what has been presented to the world over the years, is a black and white version of the colourised version, so, what we are seeing is not a true representation of the actual virgin enhancement before colourisation.

Duncan

Some, including myself, have posted the color version because we believe it is what is seen on the one Mack and White used ... that Jack only added color. Also in case people have forgotten ... Gary and Jack used a UPI print that was, and remains, superior to all other versions. Jack has posted his best blowups many times since the 90s. The Smith, FBI, and the drum scan is inferior to the UPI print they used. I seem to recall that they chose the best UPI print. It seems that some scans of the UPI print were better than others and they used the sharpest image in the area corner of the dog leg.

Bill

Miller is actually almost correct. The colored version was a b/w print stained with transparent photo oils. Gary

collected prints from several sources, including Weisberg and Thompson. We used the THOMPSON #1 print

for badgeman studies because it was the clearest and sharpest print. Next sharpest was the Weisberg #1.

I think both were UPI, but do not remember for sure. This is somewhat odd, because as I recall these prints

were superior to prints obtained from UPI itself as well as other UPI prints. I am glad to see Miller admit that

the print we used was superior to Thompson's DRUM SCAN.

Jack

[Jack White]

By all means Bill please post a better blow up image of the area behind the wall in Moorman

I would love to have a better blow up

I doubt you will be able to find one thats better then the one I posted but if you have one or can find one post away.

Martin,

Jack White has posted the better image several times over the years, thus you can probably do a search on this site to see it. The scan some of you keep using is the drum scan and its clarity is poor. Mack tells me:

Many are using the "drum scan" image of Moorman,

which is a terrible source for any studies. The drum scan was done

recently from a copy negative made for Josiah Thompson several years after

the assassination, which was long after the original Polaroid had

deteriorated and lost most of its clarity. The scan is junk.

Jack and Mack used a copy of the Moorman photo that was made prior to the Moorman photo becoming deteriorated and is why their image of that area is far superior to all the rest. This has been explained in the past which puzzles me why people who were certainly researchers at that time would still post the worst copy available instead of the best

The illustration of Arnold that Duncan posted years ago is flawed. I have said this many times and will say it again ... If one see's the Duncan scaling as proving the figure is too short to be human, then they are ignoring the Nix film showing this individual standing above the wall and then going to the ground. Whether Duncan or anyone else can understand the error in that particular scaling ... the fact remains that there are two film sources showing someone between the wall and the fence - one a still photo and the other a movie film.

Bill

Bill,

The problem with the Mack/White Moorman crop enhancement, is that what has been presented to the world over the years, is a black and white version of the colourised version, so, what we are seeing is not a true representation of the actual virgin enhancement before colourisation.

Duncan

Duncan is one hundred percent WRONG!

Jack

[Jack White]

By all means Bill please post a better blow up image of the area behind the wall in Moorman

I would love to have a better blow up

I doubt you will be able to find one thats better then the one I posted but if you have one or can find one post away.

Martin

Are you replying to me or Martin?

I will assume you put his name on accident

I have like 20 different copies of Moorman on my computer, that is the best blowup I have of that area

I will countinue to use it until I come across a better blowup of that area

it this it Jack ??THE JACK GARY MOORMAN FBI PRINT...I AM NoT SURE IF THIS IS THE ONE THAT IS of SUBJECT.....best b

We did NOT use the FBI print. I don't think we even had it. We used the Thompson #1 print.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

This is somewhat odd, because as I recall these prints

were superior to prints obtained from UPI itself as well as other UPI prints. I am glad to see Miller admit that

the print we used was superior to Thompson's DRUM SCAN.

Jack

I think I can explain why the different quality prints ...

Going from memory here ... Gary Mack explained something to me about UPI's prints and why they were of different qualities on different parts of the image ... (I hope I have this correct) ... The copy source was scanned, so each time a print was ordered ... someone would have to get the source material out and put it on a scanner. The problem in those days as I understood it was that the source print was not always perfectly flat which caused the areas that were flat to scan sharper than those that were not. This was why some prints look sharper in one location on the image and not on another print of the same made at another date.

I think that most folks who have used a modern scanner and seen some slight blur in areas on their finished product where the source print was not flat on the screen will know what I am talking about. Often times I will lay a book over my source print so to keep it flat. I think in the case of the UPI print source - it came from a negative made from the Moorman photo which meant that light probably had to back light the image to get a positive print made, which means that nothing could probably have been used to hold the image perfectly flat during the scanning.

If I am in error, then Jack or Gary will see this and correct me.

Also Jack, I have never said the drum scan was the best and sharpest print all around. I'm sure that your remark is in reference to the 'GAP' argument that Thompson made about you and Fetzer's flawed 'in the street' work. I have yet to see a Moorman print that supports your LOS from the street. You once claimed that there was one, but you have never shown it to the JFK community to date.

Bill

[Bernice Moore]

Thanks Jack, I Found these one was marked thompson upi...is this possibley it, ?and the upi from the newspaper...best b..

[Bill Miller]

My comparison of the alleged Gordon Arnold figure in Moorman, overlaid on a recreation photograph ( Credit Bill Miller ) containing real humans at the alleged Gordon Arnold and Badgeman locations.

The comparison clearly shows that Gordon Arnold must be an illusion.

As I recall there was a later correction made on the recreation photo which ended up bringing the vertical heights of the subjects in each photo to a point of being very close to one another. As some may recall, Gary Mack made us aware that the current wall in my photo was now a different VISIBLE height than it appeared in Moorman's photo. I remember the cause having something to do with landscaping/sodding done on the knoll. (Mack would have to state the difference again for I have since forgotten it)

After the correction was made, it was also posted to the forums.

Bill

Edited October 10, 2010 by Bill Miller

[David Josephs]

By all means Bill please post a better blow up image of the area behind the wall in Moorman

I would love to have a better blow up

I doubt you will be able to find one thats better then the one I posted but if you have one or can find one post away.

Martin

Are you replying to me or Martin?

I will assume you put his name on accident

I have like 20 different copies of Moorman on my computer, that is the best blowup I have of that area

I will countinue to use it until I come across a better blowup of that area

it this it Jack ??THE JACK GARY MOORMAN FBI PRINT...I AM NoT SURE IF THIS IS THE ONE THAT IS of SUBJECT.....best b

We did NOT use the FBI print. I don't think we even had it. We used the Thompson #1 print.

Jack

I have to agree that in this blow-up it sure does look like a person... My hurdles to this conclusion though includes a look at the sunlight patterns on the FRONTS of these supposed people as well as the reflective nature of the badge, shoulder patch and the sunlight we see on the GA image and Hatman...the right sides of these "people", as we face the photo, should be in darkness, in the shadows. As we can see by the roscoe overlay, the badge should not be seen at all based on how a person holds a rifle, and since there is no light shinning on the arm patch there is no reason it should be illuminated.

If what we are seeing is the first shot from the GK, then Arnold's hittin gthe dirt can be justified... would 2-3 more shots be fired from that location given the distance and how everyone saw JFK's head blow up... conjecture...

Just like the conjecture, as well as the conclusions about Yarborough:

Bill wrote:

Yarborough probably did believe he saw Arnold on the first shot back in 1978. The reason for my saying this is because in Altgens #6 ... Yarborough still seems to be smiling and oblivious to any shots being fired. The same can be said about others like Charles Brehm who are still clapping up to that point. Seeing how Yarborough and JFK were friends ... I think we can agree that a smiling Yarborough probably means that he is unaware at that moment that shots are being fired at the motorcade. This means that the next shot(s) were the first ones he recognized, thus he called the kill shot the first shot.

Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch, to come to conclusions about what people did or didn't see or did or didn't THINK as the result of an image in a photo? In addition, Yarborough specifically says he heard all three shots. That the kill shot was NOT the 1st shot he hears but the last. If you are going to use Yarborough to confirm Arnold then Arnold CAN NOT be in Moorman... he would have already been on the ground based on his own testimony and Yarborough's.

The following affidavit was executed by Ralph W. Yarborough on July 10, 1964.

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION

ON THE ASSASSINATION OF

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

AFFIDAVIT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss:

In response to the oral request of one of the attorneys for the Commission that I send you an affidavit for inclusion in the record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I make the following statement:

On November 22, 1963, as the President and Mrs. Kennedy rode through the streets of Dallas, I was in the second car behind them. The first car behind the Presidential car was the Secret Service car; the second car behind them was Vice-President Lyndon Johnson's car. The driver and a secret service agent were on the front seat of the Vice-President's car. Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson sat on the right side of the rear seat of the automobile, Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson was in the center of the rear seat, while I sat on the left side of the rear seat. After the Presidential motorcade had passed through the heart of downtown Dallas, experiencing an exceptionally warm and friendly greeting, as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast, close by. I have handled firearms for fifty year, and thought immediately that it was a rifle shot. When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop). After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots--these were my impressions that day), a third shot was fired. After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital.

I heard three shots and no more. All seemed to come from my right rear. I saw people fall to the ground on the embankment to our right, at about the time of or after the second shot, but before the cavalcade started up and raced away.

Due to the second car, with the secret service men standing on steps on the sides of it, I could not see what was happening in the Presidential car during the shooting itself. Some of the secret service men looked backward and to the right, in the general direction from which the rifle explosions seemed to come.

After the shooting, one of the secret service men sitting down in the car in front of us pulled out an automatic rifle or weapon and looked backward. However, all of the secret service men seemed to me to respond very slowly, with no more than a puzzled look. In fact, until the automatic weapon was uncovered, I had been lulled into a sense of false hope for the President's safety, by the lack of motion, excitement, or apparent visible knowledge by the secret service men, that anything so dreadful was happening. Knowing something of the training that combat infantrymen and Marines receive, I am amazed at the lack of instantaneous response by the Secret Service, when the rifle fire began. I make this statement in this paragraph reluctantly, not to add to the anguish of anyone, but it is my firm opinion, and I write it out in the hope that it might be of service in the better protection of our Presidents in the future.

After we went under the underpass, on the upward slope I could see over the heads of the occupants of the second car (Secret Service car) and could see an agent lying across the back or trunk of the Presidential car, with his feet to the right side of the car, his head at the left side. He beat the back of the car with one hand, his face contorted by grief, anguish, and despair, and I knew from that instant that some terrible loss had been suffered.

On arrival at the hospital, I told newsmen that three rifle shots had been fired. There was then no doubt in my mind that the shots were rifle shots, and I had neither then or now any doubts that any other shots were fired. In my opinion only three shots were fired.

The attached photograph from pages 24 and 25 of the Saturday Evening Post of December 14, 1963, shows the motorcade, as I remember it, an instant after the first shot. [Photograph is Yarborough Exhibit A.]

Given and sworn to this 10th day of July, 1964, at Washington, District of Columbia.

Signed this 10th day of July 1964.

(S) Ralph W. Yarborough,

RALPH W. YARBOROUGH.

[Bill Miller]

Let's start with Yarborough ...

There were several key assassination witnesses who said they heard three or more shots, which I am sure that after they had time to learn more details about the shooting that thinking back on that day - they probably did believe that certain sounds they heard may have been shots. However, I seem to continually have to keep reminding researchers to look at the Photographic record. By the time Altgens took his #6 photo ... we all can agree that shots had already been fired, but yet Yarborough seems to still be enjoying the parade. JFK was his friend and I am certain that Yarborough (had he known his dear friend was being shot up) would not still be smiling and enjoying the parade. In my view the Senator did not recognize the first sounds of gunfire or else he wouldn't look as he does in Altgens #6. So if he ever gave an interview and said that he saw the person on the knoll hit the ground when the shooting started .... he is only giving an accounting of what he thought at the time he recognized that the shooting had started. Decades later and not long before his death, Murph mentioned something about Ralph saying he saw the man on the knoll at the time of the first shot and that statement didn't appear to make sense to Ralph.

A similar thing happened with Charles Brehm who in Altgens #6 he still has his arms raised and clapping his hands. I think we can agree that Charles wasn't clapping at the fine marksmanship of the shooters who by that time has injured two people inside the limo. It is these types of observations that have caused me to be careful in betting the farm on latter witness statements and testimonies because what they thought at the time of the shooting and what they thought later on after gathering more data about the shooting is two different things. People can confuse what they did at a particular moment in time, especially during great stress, but a picture has nothing to influence what it records.

The Roscoe White overlay was one that I worked on and posted years ago. As I recall, Badge Man was standing while White was sitting on a step while taking aim. Roscoe was aiming on an even plane and Badge Man would be aiming slightly downward if shooting at the President, thus to say a badge should be visible in both images or none at all leaves plenty of room for error.

The Badge Man image appears to be in darkness because he is under the shade of the tree foliage above him, but in reality he would not have been so dark when seen with the naked eye. Its the image on film and how the photo or film was exposed along with film type, filters, and other factors involved that caused the knoll to appear so dark. After all, the Bond photo showing the pop bottle on the the wall is well lit in that area. What I think happened with the Badge Man area is that someone worked with different exposures in order to get the most amount of detail without altering the image by expanding borders.

The mention of light shining on these individuals is a key factor in determining if the Arnold figure is the same person that we see as the Black Dog Man in the more further away photos taken by Betzner and Willis. I have mentioned this sunspot many times in the past. Arnold had said that he followed the President down to the street to the point that a shot came passed his left ear from behind. When I did a scaled overlay of the BDM and Arnold from the Betzner and Moorman photos, I watched the sunspot make only a subtle change, which would be expected if Arnold was turning with the approaching President. I was unable to find anything out of the ordinary when examining this issue.

Last but not least was what was reported to me by Mark Oakes when he viewed the original Pascall film. Mark said that he could see someone on the knoll hitting the ground or being on the ground. I remember Mark telling me this at the time and he had hoped that the film would be enhanced to show this, but certain factors arose over the film and nothing has happened to date as far as I know. I have made a call to Mark and have left a message for him to get back with me. I will share what ever he has to say about what he witnessed on the original Pascall film when I hear back from him.

Bill Miller

Edited October 12, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Martin Hinrichs]

I don't know if the Patsy Paschall film on Youtube covers all frames?!

At least in this Youtube version, this particular area (Badgman/Arnold) at the retaining wall on the grassy knoll

is not captured immediately before or after the headshot.

But it's the only film which captured Sitzman/Zapruder went of the concrete block.

Barely visible in this poor quality.

It's really a pity that this film was not enhanced from the first generation negatives.

Or lets say, not made public.

I have seen many many documentations....but no one covered a good copy of the Paschall film.

The proof that the original Paschall film is of pretty neat quality in comparison the available footages

is visible in Time Life magazine in 1967.

This is a scan of one frame i've made. I did the best to enhance it via postwork in PS.

Even the SS-100-X is visible in deep shadow underneath the triple underpath.

Yes, even the presidential flag on the left side.

best

Martin

[Martin Hinrichs]

Talking about the famous Moorman photo and Badgeman and Gordon Arnold.

It's certainly not my intention to offend anybody here.

Please excuse me.

All i want to do, is to expose the 3 figures behind the retaining wall in their proper scale.

We all know this neat crop image which is published many times in books and i believed

in the authenticity once upon a time.

Everything in me cries NO. Every 3D gene in me says that this is impossible.

And i'am 3D Freelancer since many years. It does hurt my understanding of proper scale.

Gary Mack and Jack White are responsible for it.

Why do they not reject their theory? I don't understand it.

Both are adult and well experienced. It's so plain clear that they made a mistake.

Is it all about money any copyrights?

Bill, i know you have faith in Gordon Arnold. I have very much respect for you.

I have an idea where Arnold can be in Moorman but not in that place.

Again, it's not my intention to raise offense. I just want to know the truth.

I started once a Poll on Duncan's forum and 33% believed in the authenticity

of Badgeman. Thats a serious number.

Thank you

Martin

[Bill Miller]

Talking about the famous Moorman photo and Badgeman and Gordon Arnold.

All i want to do, is to expose the 3 figures behind the retaining wall in their proper scale.

We all know this neat crop image which is published many times in books and i believed

in the authenticity once upon a time.

Everything in me cries NO. Every 3D gene in me says that this is impossible.

And i'am 3D Freelancer since many years. It does hurt my understanding of proper scale.

Gary Mack and Jack White are responsible for it.

Why do they not reject their theory? I don't understand it.

Both are adult and well experienced. It's so plain clear that they made a mistake.

Is it all about money any copyrights?

Martin,

I have not a clue as to what in the hell you are talking about. Yes, people have placed colorization crops in the Moorman photo - a poor print choice at that. However, Mack and White used the best actual UPI scan of the Moorman photo, thus everything is to scale. Jack and Gary did measurements and checked their work. I forget the man's name, but Jack's work was recreated for this individual who found nothing wrong with it.

I used stand-ins at the locations we are discussing. I placed Mike Brown at a point where the LOS intersected in the Betzner,Willis, and Moorman photos combined. I put Tony Cummings at the fence on the RR yard side of it and I took a recreation photo. These men's images matched what was seen in the UPI print. What made them look vertically longer than Mary's images of them was that I matched up the two retaining walls from top to bottom while not knowing that the ground base on the east side of the wall was at a different elevation than it was at the time of the assassination. Once I found out that I made the wall too tall and corrected it, then I found that Brown and Cummings were within the realm of the size of the individuals seen in Mary's photo.

All this information was posted in detail and should be in the archives for those who will take the time to read through it all. Even if the images may or may not still be available - the text should still be there. As long as people keep using the poor fuzzy prints, then their conclusions cannot be any better than their source material.

Bill

PS: In speaking with Mark Oakes today, Mark could not remember all we talked about concerning the Pascall film. It is true that Pascall didn't film the head shot, but her film did show the walkway area within about 13 seconds or so after the limo sped off and while Zapruder was getting down from the pedestal. Mark wanted someone to lighten that area to better see who, if anyone, was there.

[David Josephs]

Some images that show how much higher the ground behind the wall is compared to the front corner of the wall.

Initially I did an image much like Duncan's in which the size looks as if it doesn't make sense.

But the problem was, up till now, that we never seemed to show a photo of the elevation back there.

How the ground dips near the front inside of the wall and the front outside, what moorman sees, extends well below the level of the walkway.

I simply took an image of another person and placed them in these different locations. Granted, this is 2D representation of 3D space yet from this view if seems that a person standing back toward the fence might be represented as we see in moorman and is much taller than his counterpart by the wall.

and from behind we see the man at the wall much shorter than the other people. Given how the Knoll slopes away so fast... does this change your thoughts Martin... Obviously, Bill believed this all along...

[David Josephs]

If this is correct - and I seem to remember some of these elevation charts were not correct - then the ground behind the wall is almost 2 feet higher than at the base of the wall facing Moorman.

2 feet difference on a 5 foot wall is 40% - a BIG difference when assuming the ground behind the wall is at the same level as in front for sizing GArnold. With respect to lens apeture and distances I honestly do not know what to believe anymore.

But at least to my thoughts... GA's size is much more of a reality now then before these images...

DJ