Jump to content
The Education Forum

Whereabouts of Mr. Hudson


David Josephs
 Share

Recommended Posts

Very nice Duncan

I have looked for hours and days at Willis and im positive that Hudson is hidden by BDW&Bs (Black Dog Woman & Baby) husband

Either that or the Hunchback of Notre Dame is standing on the steps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

aa-4.gif

Nice, Duncan. I know its tough to tell, but I do believe that the clothing of Emmett looks somewhat visible just beyond the outline of the younger man in your scan. It is just that the light colored clothing Hudson wore tends to blend into the background.

The only thing with your animation is that both men as I recall had their arms behind them with their hands on their hip area ... that is if in fact the two men were posed in Willis as we see them in the other three film sources previously mentioned in this thread. I have left a message with Gary Mack to email me the time span from the moment Willis took his photo to the point that Muchmore first picks up the south dog leg and steps in her film. I am sure that I posted the figures years ago after discussing it with Mack and I will certainly post them again once I have heard back from him. My memory seems to be that it was only a matter of a very few seconds.

The time frame illustration DJ posted is at 5.5 seconds, but it would be interesting to post the time span before the steps first started coming into view which I think brings the time frame down to around 3 seconds or so. Of course, Hudson would still be off screen, but in the split second when he comes into view - he is already poised which makes it seem even more unlikely he made a mad dash down the steps at the last possible moment.

Thanks for the scan.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

aa-4.gif

Nice, Duncan. I know its tough to tell, but I do believe that the clothing of Emmett looks somewhat visible just beyond the outline of the younger man in your scan. It is just that the light colored clothing Hudson wore tends to blend into the background.

The only thing with your animation is that both men as I recall had their arms behind them with their hands on their hip area ... that is if in fact the two men were posed in Willis as we see them in the other three film sources previously mentioned in this thread. I have left a message with Gary Mack to email me the time span from the moment Willis took his photo to the point that Muchmore first picks up the south dog leg and steps in her film. I am sure that I posted the figures years ago after discussing it with Mack and I will certainly post them again once I have heard back from him. My memory seems to be that it was only a matter of a very few seconds.

The time frame illustration DJ posted is at 5.5 seconds, but it would be interesting to post the time span before the steps first started coming into view which I think brings the time frame down to around 3 seconds or so. Of course, Hudson would still be off screen, but in the split second when he comes into view - he is already poised which makes it seem even more unlikely he made a mad dash down the steps at the last possible moment.

Thanks for the scan.

Bill Miller

Thanks Bill... good to see/hear from you again. and thanks as well to Duncan for the image yet I beleive Bill is right about the arms as we can see in this frame of Muchmoore

Which is what led me to be so skeptical about the leg area andthe fact that Hudson has white slacks on yet there is no indication to me that there are white pant legs behind those skinny little black panted legs of the other man. Add to this the gusting wind, the man's open jacket and how his arms were and I beleive the entire black area could be his jacket and arms.

Would we say that BDM is moving in willis5 or is that simply the blur of the camera moving...

Would we say BDM is stationary in Betzner?

Can we at least agree that BDM is not GArnold who should have been farther to the north and west of BDM on his mound by the fence

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.

I don't suppose there are any other statement to be had by Hudson or the younger man who immediately ran up the steps... who by the way as seen in Nix, gets up the stairs and to the BDM position within a handful of frames... I do not think it so immposible for Hudson to go the 15 steps from BDM position to the stairs from z202 thru a283.

But I have to admit is is rather unlikely given the timing, positions and stories told... just seemed to me plausible.

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.

DJ:Sounds to me like above and behind Hudson which would be the picket fence - Leibeler has other ideas

Mr. LIEBELER - How could you tell that?

Mr. HUDSON - Well, just the sound of it.

Mr. LIEBELER - You heard it come from sort of behind the motorcade and then above? DJ:snuck it in.. leading the witness your honor... what a surprise

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I don't know if you have ever laid down close to the ground, you know, when you heard the reports coming, but it's a whole lot plainer than it is when you are standing up in the air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not a shooter, either, but it makes sense to me to put a guy dressed as a cop

in that location, have a very loud round fired from the TSBD to distract attention,

then claim that BDM was returning fire should anybody see him.

After all, 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??

On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we have the opportunity with Bill Miller (doubtless a good researcher with a keen eye) here i like to throw a question in.

I hope you don't mind David for my little derail here.

It's anyway somehow on Topic cause it has to do with the retaining wall.

I've seen once a documentary where this issue was raised.

I believe it was from Robert Groden. This docu showed for the first time

clearly motion behind the wall after the headshot.

So, i created once a stable GIF of the Nix frames 50-60 with the focus on the

retaining wall corner to cross check it.

Well, i can confirm it. It's for real and was even capable to work it out

with degenerated poor Nix frames.

Here the stable GIF. It shows a white dot moving down behind the wall.

Nix frame 24 is equivalent to Zapruder 313. So, this motion happend some 1.5 seconds after

the headshot.

n50-60-1.gif

Bill, can you make and educated guess what this might be?

I like to ask this question to you all Gentlemen, of course.

Thank you forward.

David, as you too 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, can you make and educated guess what this might be?

I like to ask this question to you all Gentlemen, of course.

Thank you forward.

David, as you too 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 went with Groden to a lab where they took his first generation copy made from the original Nix film and we watched it played over and over. It appeared to us as being someone moving in the manner and at the exact moment that Gordon Arnold said he did when a shot was said to come past his head. (The Groden print was not as dark as the Gif shows, but it wasn't light enough to tell who it might have been)

The motion also supported in my view what Yarborough was trying to say when he seen this movement up on the knoll from the VPs car.

Also in 'The Killing of a President" there was an enlarged Bond photo showing the pop bottle on the wall. That photo shows two upright figures near the large tree near the shelter. 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. the 4.8 seconds relates to the time needed to get from point A to point B. BDM was facing the Willis camera and Hudson was already in position when Muchmore passed over him, thus a time lapse of one second needed to turn and start the decent should be considered for Hudson if it was he at the wall. This doesn't allow for the time he may have needed to stop on the step and get into the posture we see him in when entering the cameras viewfinder. 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."

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not a shooter, either, but it makes sense to me to put a guy dressed as a cop

in that location, have a very loud round fired from the TSBD to distract attention,

then claim that BDM was returning fire should anybody see him.

After all, 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??

On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this.

Not sure why we'd need a rebuttal... Rosemary does establish someone/something at that spot who disappears right after the headshot, or at least very close to that time period, she is not specific but infers it's after z313.

There are no conclusions regarding the "very distinct straight line feature" due to the fuzziness of the photo. "...could not conclude whether it was or was not a weapon"

I don't think anyone disputes it was there and then was gone and it was there well before Betzner's z185 photo since there is not movement betwewn betzner and willis, BDM was not moving thru the area but stationary.

Hudson walks right past that spot... the young man runs up to that spot immediately after the shots... (which is pretty insane if the shots came from that area, to run TO that spot in the manner he does) Sitzman talks about the two black people on the bench which would have been even farther north than BDM, yet no mention of BDM. I imagine if they were sitting on the bench, and one got up with a coke bottle to get a better view he/she would have suddenly appeared there when they stood up and then disappear again shen they ran off leaving the coke bottle behind... they broke the other one.

Your theory is interesting yet a policeman in plain sight shooting into the limo???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not a shooter, either, but it makes sense to me to put a guy dressed as a cop

in that location, have a very loud round fired from the TSBD to distract attention,

then claim that BDM was returning fire should anybody see him.

After all, 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??

On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis?

http://www.history-m...Vol12_0006a.htm

I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this.

hi cliff, i have not read of any impeaching her testimony on this f, i could have missed such though if, i believe the witnesses saw and said what they did and do not need others to put it into their words, cause they need to make it fit their theory..

i recall altgens mentions dpd in the area of the wall.......take care b...

LIFTON's book, "Best Evidence."

The following is from a 01NOV65 telephone conversation between LIFTON and

"Associated Press photographer/news photo editor/wire photo operator, JAMES

"Ike" WILLIAM ALTGENS,

<QUOTE>

He was friendly on the phone and mentioned quite casually that just before the

motorcade came by, a number of people suddenly appeared behind the wall on the

knoll. (84) He added that he thought it was an odd place to watch the parade

from since the car would speed up right there as it entered the Stemmons

Freeway. This was new, exciting information, but I was worried that Altgens

might be confusing this recollection with his description of people on the

overpass, which was mentioned in his Warren Commission testimony. But he

assured me he was talking about the wall on the grassy knoll--to the right of

the stairs when one faced the knoll.

When I asked Altgens if there were any police among the "people" he saw, he

replied, "I seem to remember that there were. (85)

(84) Author's memo, 11/1/65 conversation with Altgens

(85) Ibid

<END QUOTE>

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

After all, 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??

On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this.

Not sure why we'd need a rebuttal...

Only if one is inclined to believe it was a woman holding baby, a conclusion

which assumes both Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis of Willis #5 got it

wrong.

For those who hold to the possibility it was, indeed, a woman holding a baby, then

on what basis are Rosemary's statement and the HSCA analysis impeached?

Rosemary does establish someone/something at that spot who disappears right after the headshot, or at least very close to that time period, she is not specific but infers it's after z313.

I don't see where she indicates anything about the person disappearing after

the headshot.

Her rapid headsnap occurs Z214-217, and the only activity on the knoll she described

was BDM disappearing "the next instant."

With a shot to the throat at Z190 and BDM disappearing about a second later with

a "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands" seems to me

to make a compelling case for BDM as a shooter, although certainly not conclusive.

There are no conclusions regarding the "very distinct straight line feature" due to the fuzziness of the photo. "...could not conclude whether it was or was not a weapon"

Fair enough. It could be a coincidence that someone who went to see Kennedy holding

a very distinct straight-line feature in their hands decided to disappear about a

second after the guy they came to see was shot in the throat.

I don't think anyone disputes it was there and then was gone and it was there well before Betzner's z185 photo since there is not movement betwewn betzner and willis, BDM was not moving thru the area but stationary.

Stationary for how long? There was less than a second between Betnzer 3 and Willis 5.

Hudson walks right past that spot... the young man runs up to that spot immediately after the shots... (which is pretty insane if the shots came from that area, to run TO that spot in the manner he does)

None of this occurred during the time frame in question, did it?

Rosemary started running west as the limo turned onto Elm Street and she told

the HSCA she saw two "conspicuous people", Umbrella Man and Black Dog Man.

Her description of UM matches Louis Witt's descriptions of his actions -- he was pre-occupied with the umbrella.

Although she doesn't say exactly when "the next instant" of BDM's sudden disappearance

occurred, her rapid head snap was drawn by something that occurred to her left,

and BDM's absence from any other photos is consistent with his disappearing about

the same time as her head snap.

Sitzman talks about the two black people on the bench which would have been even farther north than BDM, yet no mention of BDM.

Wasn't she a bit pre-occupied with Abe during the time in question?

I imagine if they were sitting on the bench, and one got up with a coke bottle to get a better view he/she would have suddenly appeared there when they stood up and then disappear again shen they ran off leaving the coke bottle behind... they broke the other one.

If you were going to see the President of the United States in a motorcade why

would you disappear just as the limo was approaching your position?

And is a coke bottle a "very distinct straight-line feature"?

Your theory is interesting yet a policeman in plain sight shooting into the limo???

If he were shooting a standard round, that would be less likely, perhaps, but the nature

of the throat wound is consistent with non-conventional weaponry, seems to me. And

it doesn't appear as if JFK were reacting to a conventional bullet strike.

One more intriguing thing Rosemary Willis said to the HSCA:

Ms. Willis said she was aware of three shots being fired. She gave no information

on the direction or location of the shots, but stated that her father became upset

when the policeman in the area appeared to run away from where he thought the shots

came from; that is, they were running away from the grassy knoll.

It would have taken a big dose of suicidal bravery for anyone to directly accuse

a cop of shooting Kennedy, seems to me.

I'm not saying that it is a fact that BDM was a shooter, but that could be a reasonable

conclusion that fits the extant evidence better than the other explanations that

are kicked around.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not a shooter, either, but it makes sense to me to put a guy dressed as a cop

in that location, have a very loud round fired from the TSBD to distract attention,

then claim that BDM was returning fire should anybody see him.

After all, 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??

On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis?

http://www.history-m...Vol12_0006a.htm

I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this.

hi cliff, i have not read of any impeaching her testimony on this f, i could have missed such though if, i believe the witnesses saw and said what they did and do not need others to put it into their words, cause they need to make it fit their theory..

i recall altgens mentions dpd in the area of the wall.......take care b...

LIFTON's book, "Best Evidence."

The following is from a 01NOV65 telephone conversation between LIFTON and

"Associated Press photographer/news photo editor/wire photo operator, JAMES

"Ike" WILLIAM ALTGENS,

<QUOTE>

He was friendly on the phone and mentioned quite casually that just before the

motorcade came by, a number of people suddenly appeared behind the wall on the

knoll. (84) He added that he thought it was an odd place to watch the parade

from since the car would speed up right there as it entered the Stemmons

Freeway. This was new, exciting information, but I was worried that Altgens

might be confusing this recollection with his description of people on the

overpass, which was mentioned in his Warren Commission testimony. But he

assured me he was talking about the wall on the grassy knoll--to the right of

the stairs when one faced the knoll.

When I asked Altgens if there were any police among the "people" he saw, he

replied, "I seem to remember that there were. (85)

(84) Author's memo, 11/1/65 conversation with Altgens

(85) Ibid

<END QUOTE>

Thank you, Bernice. Maybe these were the policeman who ticked off Phil Willis

by running away from where he thought the shots were fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

Would we say that BDM is moving in willis5 or is that simply the blur of the camera moving...

Would we say BDM is stationary in Betzner?

Can we at least agree that BDM is not GArnold who should have been farther to the north and west of BDM on his mound by the fence

I cannot agree that the BDM was not Arnold not only because of the fine work Mack and White did on the Moorman Polaroid, but also because Arnold told his story in detail BEFORE anyone but Mack and White knew about the man in Moorman. (some seem to ignore this point)

Groden did an excellent job of showing that a figure was indeed just beyond the wall and the sunlit part of the clothing did match the color of material Gordon would have wore while in uniform. (some seem to ignore that point as well)

Arnold not only told of the timing of this figures movements in relation to the sequence of events, but sure as heck the Bond photo does show two figures in dark clothing near the spot where the unknown person in Nix is shown falling to the ground. (some seem to ignore all these points)

To this day no one has explained how Gordon could have known these things for the two men at the tree in the Bond photo was introduced by me well after the Men Who KIlled Kennedy series had been made. If they were ever noticed before, then I was unaware of it. That leaves me believing that Arnold was either there as he said he was, or he was close by and merely witnessed it and took the credit for it. The latter seems unlikely for he wouldn't have known that a good image of this area wouldn't show up at a later time or that someone would not come forward and said it was they and not Arnold seen in those photos.

As far as the angle to the mound goes, I do not agree that they do not match to where these figures are seen in Moorman, Nix, Willis, and Betzner's films and photos. I once posted a overhead view taken from across Houston Street and each line of sight crossed the same general spot. I have no interest in whether Artnold was there or not .... its just that each time I examined the evidence of this matter - it continued to support Arnold's claims.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall Rosemary Willis saying something along the line of her looking away for just a moment and when she looked back again ... the man seen beyond the wall was gone.

Yarborough said the man dove to the ground.

The Nix film print Groden owns shows someone heading down behind the wall as if to get out of the line of fire at the precise moment Arnold said he hit the dirt.

Arnold said he hit the ground immediately after the bullet passed over his left shoulder.

These things taken as a whole seem to point towards the figure being behind the wall and was why Rosemary didn't see him when she looked back in that direction a moment later.

If there is another way of looking at it that makes more sense, then I haven't heard it.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall Rosemary Willis saying something along the line of her looking away for just a moment and when she looked back again ... the man seen beyond the wall was gone.

What she told the HSCA was that BDM happened to "disappear the next instant."

If you can provide additional direct quotes of hers, please do so.

Yarborough said the man dove to the ground.

Citation please.

The Nix film print Groden owns shows someone heading down behind the wall as if to get out of the line of fire at the precise moment Arnold said he hit the dirt.

Dirt behind the concrete wall? Are you sure about that, Bill?

We know Rosemary Willis was in Dealey Plaza for a fact.

Do we know that Gordon Arnold was there for a fact?

Arnold said he hit the ground immediately after the bullet passed over his left shoulder.

Please cite where he said he was behind the concrete wall in the BDM position.

These things taken as a whole seem to point towards the figure being behind the wall and was why Rosemary didn't see him when she looked back in that direction a moment later.

I wouldn't characterize her rapid head snap at Z214-217 as merely "looking back."

It seems as if something specific drew her attention.

If there is another way of looking at it that makes more sense, then I haven't heard it.

Bill

And what was the "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands"

that is consistent with BDM being Gordon Arnold?

His camera?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

After all, 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??

On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this.

Not sure why we'd need a rebuttal...

Only if one is inclined to believe it was a woman holding baby, a conclusion

which assumes both Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis of Willis #5 got it

wrong.

For those who hold to the possibility it was, indeed, a woman holding a baby, then

on what basis are Rosemary's statement and the HSCA analysis impeached?

Rosemary does establish someone/something at that spot who disappears right after the headshot, or at least very close to that time period, she is not specific but infers it's after z313.

I don't see where she indicates anything about the person disappearing after

the headshot.

Her rapid headsnap occurs Z214-217, and the only activity on the knoll she described

was BDM disappearing "the next instant."

With a shot to the throat at Z190 and BDM disappearing about a second later with

a "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands" seems to me

to make a compelling case for BDM as a shooter, although certainly not conclusive.

Interesting point you make Cliff... will have to do more thinking on the subject.... yet if and I do mean if GA was there, BDM would be right next to him and he does not describe anything like that. At the same token I still have a difficult time seeing GA as BDM.

There are no conclusions regarding the "very distinct straight line feature" due to the fuzziness of the photo. "...could not conclude whether it was or was not a weapon"

Fair enough. It could be a coincidence that someone who went to see Kennedy holding

a very distinct straight-line feature in their hands decided to disappear about a

second after the guy they came to see was shot in the throat.

quite a few leaps of faith in this statement, I supposed if you are inclined to think it was a shooter, a “straight line feature” becomes a rifle.

I don't think anyone disputes it was there and then was gone and it was there well before Betzner's z185 photo since there is not movement betwewn betzner and willis, BDM was not moving thru the area but stationary.

Stationary for how long? There was less than a second between Betnzer 3 and Willis 5.

trying to say that BDM had to get there and leave in some manner. The black couple was sitting right there and this person would just shoot regardless? BDM cannot vanish, he either is GA who dove to the ground, the black man eating lunch and putting his coke on the wall (how else does that get there – anyone?), or someone else. Somehow Hudson walks from behind the steps, past BDM position without being stopped or questioned by anyone whereas others where specifically told to leave the area. Hudson says he’s in the area from 12 on.

Hudson walks right past that spot... the young man runs up to that spot immediately after the shots... (which is pretty insane if the shots came from that area, to run TO that spot in the manner he does)

None of this occurred during the time frame in question, did it?

Rosemary started running west as the limo turned onto Elm Street and she told

the HSCA she saw two "conspicuous people", Umbrella Man and Black Dog Man.

Her description of UM matches Louis Witt's descriptions of his actions -- he was pre-occupied with the umbrella.

Although she doesn't say exactly when "the next instant" of BDM's sudden disappearance

occurred, her rapid head snap was drawn by something that occurred to her left,

and BDM's absence from any other photos is consistent with his disappearing about

the same time as her head snap.

Well if Nix’s interpretation is correct something moves right after the headshot... something falls to their left. This occurs well after the head snap....

Sitzman talks about the two black people on the bench which would have been even farther north than BDM, yet no mention of BDM.

Wasn't she a bit pre-occupied with Abe during the time in question?

not preoccupied enough to NOT know about the 2 black people, what they were doing, where they were and about how old they were.... She was VERY observant of that area.

I imagine if they were sitting on the bench, and one got up with a coke bottle to get a better view he/she would have suddenly appeared there when they stood up and then disappear again shen they ran off leaving the coke bottle behind... they broke the other one.

If you were going to see the President of the United States in a motorcade why

would you disappear just as the limo was approaching your position?

And is a coke bottle a "very distinct straight-line feature"?

you’d disappear because shots were being fired. And depending on the image, photo, lighting, etc... my guess is that yes, a coke bottle could look like a straight line feature.

Your theory is interesting yet a policeman in plain sight shooting into the limo???

If he were shooting a standard round, that would be less likely, perhaps, but the nature

of the throat wound is consistent with non-conventional weaponry, seems to me. And

it doesn't appear as if JFK were reacting to a conventional bullet strike.

One more intriguing thing Rosemary Willis said to the HSCA:

Ms. Willis said she was aware of three shots being fired. She gave no information

on the direction or location of the shots, but stated that her father became upset

when the policeman in the area appeared to run away from where he thought the shots

came from; that is, they were running away from the grassy knoll.

It would have taken a big dose of suicidal bravery for anyone to directly accuse

a cop of shooting Kennedy, seems to me.

I'm not saying that it is a fact that BDM was a shooter, but that could be a reasonable

conclusion that fits the extant evidence better than the other explanations that

are kicked around.

agreed... I think you bring up a very interesting line of thought. Thanks. DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...