Jump to content
The Education Forum

Whereabouts of Mr. Hudson


David Josephs
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just a thought re: HSCA Willis 5

wouldn't a coke bottle sitting on the wall appear as a "straight line feature" ?

Perhaps.

Here's what the HSCA said:

The photographic evidence panel also noted that in the first Willis photograph,

which shows the person standing behind the concrete wall, there is visible, near

the region of the hands of the person at the wall, "a very distinct straight-line

feature," which extends from lower right to upper right.

That's one long-necked bottle of soda, I'd say, but a better explanation that Mom-n-Babe

or Gordon Arnold...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dean,

Hudson does appear to have a hunch. This can be seen in the Muchmore frame below. The reason it may appear larger in Muchmore, could be as a result of the wind blowing the jacket. We can see the same effect with the coats of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill.

I agree Duncan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Its been a long time since dealing with all this stuff, but I do recall Mary saying that she had taken her eye off that area and when she looked back she could not see the individual beyond the wall any longer. I know Gary Mack is probably up to speed on things she has said for he knows her. I will ask Gary if he can recall other interviews she has either given or has been written for I do remember this from somewhere during my research of the matter.

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."

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

You are joking - right? I didn't quote Arnold, but paraphrased what he said while zeroing in on the moment he said he hit the ground. I am not interested in debating whether he hit the grass - the dirt - the ground - the earth - or any other meaningless term.

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

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

I do not know what "we" know.

What I have said is that I have found Arnold to be able to give details that I cannot possibly see how he could have been so accurate had he not been there and I think I said this in my response. If I wanted to play the devils advocate ... I could say the same thing about Toni Foster and dozens of other witnesses because there were no clear images in the record that would allow me to positively identify them.

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

Maybe I should make this clear ... the sidewalk is behind the wall when looking at the knoll from the Moorman, Betzner, and Willis locations. The fence is also behind the wall. As I said in my many post on the subject of long ago was that when I drew lines from those filming locations to the individuals I see in those images ... I found a point where they intersected. In the Men Who Killed Kennedy interview, Arnold stood at such a position while saying that he was standing right about here when he heard a shot fired from behind him. It was his statement on camera, along with the lines of sight from each photograph location previously mentioned that supported what Arnold said. You may recall my going to the plaza and shooting test images with Cummings and Bierma to double check the views for myself. I have already posted those findings and stand behind them.

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

It seems as if something specific drew her attention.

Could it be that her father called out to her? Then the head shot comes which causes her to look back again, thus she didn't catch the movement of the person I have spoke about in the Nix film.

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?

I am talking about the color of the clothing that Groden pointed out from the Nix film. I see no bottle on the wall in Moorman's photo, nor would it matter if I did for it doesn't tell me who it belonged to.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In post number 28 ... I wrote, "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)"

The above wording I used was poorly done. Arnold was telling his story at least 4 years before Mack and White started looking into the Moorman Polaroid Badge Man image. My initial remark was made with the 'MWKK' interview in mind ... at that time Gordon had given his accounting before seeing Gary and Jack's Badge Man work.

As we know - Arnold had told Earl Golz his story which is what led to Earl mentioning Gordon in his 1978 article.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The back of the bench is at the height of the wall...

Sitting there, the boy and girl should have been seen, their heads and shoulders would be above the wall so there should be some indication of them in all three of these photos:

Betzner

Willis

Moorman

Sitzman: Some ran ... I mean ... I finally got back up to the alcove. There was bunches of people just swarming back there, and I think almost everybody on that hill ran back up that way. And another thing that I remember this day: there was a colored couple. I figure they were between 18 and 21, a boy and a girl, sitting on a bench, just almost, oh, parallel with me, on my right side, close to the fence...

Sitzman: And they were eating their lunch, 'cause they had little lunch sacks, and they were drinking coke. The main reason I remember 'em is, 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 and I ... Of course, I don't see anything unusual in that because everybody else was running that way, 'cause when I look over on my left side, the people on the hill were all running back the same way too.

I believe we do not know whoe those kids were and I also assume the woman with baby and other black man in the first photo were NOT the 2 people Sitzman describes....

The coke bottle would not just get to the corner of the wall by itself... We do not see the bottle in Moorman, Willis or Betzner so it had to be placed there AFTER Moorman... did they throw them on the ground and only 1 of them broke meaning someone picked it up and put it on the wall... or one of them put it on the wall while the other threw theirs down....?

either way, if we believe her, these kids were there the duration of the Z film and should have been captured on film somewhere...

Is there any reason one of them couldn't be BDM while the other, maybe the smaller women, is out of site on the bench? to me, anyone on that bench would have been seen over the wall....

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply ... but I remind any interested parties on a few points ...

1) the time span from the time Willis took his photo to Moorman taking hers was just over 6 seconds.

2) it has been tested and shown that if one uses each photographers LOS to the figure seen on the west side of the wall above the knoll ... a common intersection can be seen when viewed from above. (so far no one has shown otherwise)

3) In each photographers view finder was one individual ... not two ... not three... and so on. That lone individual at the time of the head shot on Groden's 1st generation Nix film moves to the left and down to the ground. No other movement of others in motion were seen by anyone who has viewed Groden's print. At the same time Moorman takes her photo at Z315.6 and her photo is said to show one person standing ... the same thing that the Nix film demonstrated to us until that individual fell to the ground.

So what I am saying is that we are only talking about one individual in all of those locations ... the same person. The Nix film in conjunction with Moorman's photo doesn't allow for any extra people to be at this location. Whether the BDM/Arnold took a step in any direction ... he is still at the location where the LOS's cross.

Years ago I posted that a sunspot coming through the tree foliage fell across this individual at the same location by illustrating the BDM in Betzner/Arnold in Moorman. So whether one wishes he to be a black woman with a baby, an assassin, Gordon Arnold, etc., ... you are still stuck with the facts as I have offered them. One individual is seen in all the images previously mentioned ... each photo shows a sunspot shining off this person between Betzner and Moorman's photos, so if Jack and Gary's work is valid, I find that all the evidence when seen as a whole points to Arnold.

Gordon Arnold is the only person who has since said he was there and his actions where supported by at least one witness (Yarborough) and the Nix evidence shows only one possible figure in that area going to the ground just as Arnold claimed he did ... not to mention at a specific time as well. Some may want to say that people were running up and down steps and so on, I simply don't agree that. If there is a better scenario based on all the evidence, then I have never heard it.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Bill,

I'd love your opinion on my post regarding the black kids Sitzman sees. You'd have to agree that anyone sitting on that bench would have his shoulders and head above the wall as seen from Willis and Betzner

BDM, if sinister, would literally be 5 feet infront of these two... with a rifle? Cliff?

Is the scenario of the black man getting up, going over to the wall, putting his coke down, (z160 - z205) getting photographed as BDM then returning to his seat. If he moved we should see him moving ala BDM, if he stayed seated with the woman...

Where are they?

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosemary Willis was there. Gary Mack was not.

The November 1998 issue of Texas Monthly had several very good articles on the JFK assassination. Here is a link to their archives, but the reader has to register

in order to access the articles: http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/1998-11-01/feature4

It's worth it to register, there have been some great articles over the years and Texas Monthly makes them easy to find.

In an article entitled The Witnesses, Joe Nick Patoski interviewed a number of eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza, including the Willis sisters and their mother.

Here are a few excepts of what Rosemary Willis had to say:

Rosemary Willis Roach: I was taken out of school that day to go see the president. My whole family went downtown and we selected the area along Dealey Plaza to watch for the presidential motorcade to come by.... My mother as well as both of her parents -- my grandparents -- were there. My father was there, who, by the way, was taking pictures opposite Zapruder -- and my father's pictures are copyrighted, but we have those pictures....I was ten years old.

____________________

Rosemary: When I could first see them, they were coming down Main and I could just see them coming. And then they make the turn onto the next street, which is Houston, and so when they make that turn, that's about the time that there was a kid on the corner that had an epileptic seizure. Or appeared to have an epileptic seizure. Which was most interesting because an ambulance came, and if you followed this story, nothing ever became of that. We'll discuss that later. Anyway, no hospital ever received him. Anyway, I always thought at the time that person acted real strangely. Even at age 10, it didn't look like a normal emergency epileptic seizure. There was something strange about it.

Linda: It seemed staged.

Rosemary: Yeah.

____________________

Rosemary: Anyway, it seemed strange to me. Then the next thing I know, the limousine is turning the corner again. Onto Elm. From Main to Houston to Elm. And so, just as they start, they've just made that turn, they're going along, and the first gun shot was fired. Immediately, I look up to where I thought I heard the sound, and what I notice is this pigeon, upon the impact ....

As they made the turn from Houston to Elm Street, they'd just gone a few feet when the first shot rang out, and upon hearing the sound, my normal body reaction was to look up and follow the sound that I heard, it was so abrupt. I didn't know what it was, but I was looking for what I heard. And the pigeons immediately ascended off that roof of the school book depository building and that's what caught my eye. My eyes were searching for what I heard and I see the pigeons, you know, they're scared to death, and take off in abrupt flight. Next thing I know, right after that, there's another shot. And after that, there's another shot and another shot. We disagree, between me and her (nodding towards her mom and sister). My ears heard four shots. If you ask me how many I think there were, I really think that there were six, but I heard four and I'll tell you why: the first one, you know I'm right across from Zapruder. I'm wherever the limousine is. It's almost like I could...I'm right there. Anyway, the first shot rang out. It was to the front of me, and to the right of me, up high. The second shot that I heard came across from my right shoulder. By that time, the limousine had already moved further down. And that shot came across my shoulder. And the next one, right after that, still came from the right but not from as far back, it was up some. Still behind me, but not as far back as the other one. And the next one that came was from the grassy knoll and I saw the smoke coming through the trees, into the air.... Fragments of his head ascended into the air, and from my vision, focal point, the smoke and the fragments, you know, everything met. I mean, there's no question in my mind what I saw or what I heard.

____________________

Rosemary: The first shot got my attention, like I said, the pigeons immediately ascended, and I was following the sound that I heard. Of course, by the time the third shot ring out, that was the one that I saw the gunfire coming out of the grassy knoll, saw his head fragmenting into the air. By the time the second shot came out, I knew it was gunfire. First shot, I wasn't sure what was going on. All of a sudden it happened. But by the time of the second shot, then the third shot, and then the fourth shot (!), I knew what was going on. If you watch me in the Zapruder film, you see my body react to each of the shots, and that's one reason so many people have been interested in me. It's because of watching my body. Every time a shot rings out, you know, I react. Strongly.

TM: Now, 35 years later, what do you think?

Rosemary: In terms of what? Who did it? Why? I know that Kennedy was assassinated. I heard and saw many shots from many directions, so I know it was a conspiracy. And the Warren Report is totally invalid.

TM: Has it changed the way you look at life and government?

Rosemary: Sure it does. Sure it does. Because our government has been for a long time manipulating various things around the world, and various factions of our government can do that. I do not feel like the United States of America is a genuine democracy.

TM: That's pretty profound, from one event.

Rosemary: That's right, with a lot of fascist overtones.

TM: What happened after the shooting?

Rosemary: After, afterwards, you know, a lot of people, pandemonium, down on the ground. And as people get to... the limousine drives off, lot of people, FBI, CIA, policemen, lot of impostors, lot of people suddenly on the scene, and they roped off the area, they just kind of told everybody to stay put. But they really didn't do anything. It was rather strange. Kept us there for, I don't know, 30 minutes, maybe an hour. The interesting part is after we left the roped-off scene and went to the Eastman-Kodak plant, that's where it becomes real interesting. And we'll continue....

(Rosemary recalls being interrogated later by investigators)

.... .tell you over and over you didn't see what you saw, you didn't hear what you heard. When they asked you what happened, you say, 'I heard a shot from over here, I heard a shot and saw smoke from other here,' and they're going (assumes mean voice), 'No, you didn't. Look at me: you didn't. I'm telling you, you didn't.' Very adamantly and depending who they were talking to, they were very strong about it, they did not want you to tell the truth. It was messing everything up.

TM: Who were these people?

Rosemary: Well, some of them, like I say, were impostors, and that's where you get into that part about Eastman-Kodak.

____________________

I cut and pasted the above from here: http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/transcripts_1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Bill,

I'd love your opinion on my post regarding the black kids Sitzman sees. You'd have to agree that anyone sitting on that bench would have his shoulders and head above the wall as seen from Willis and Betzner

BDM, if sinister, would literally be 5 feet infront of these two... with a rifle? Cliff?

But we don't see these two. We see one figure, correct? With a "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands," according to the HSCA.

Rifle? No, not a conventional rifle. A modified, silenced firearm, yes.

Ike Altgens seemed to remember a policeman, or policemen, in the vicinity.

Is the scenario of the black man getting up, going over to the wall, putting his coke down, (z160 - z205) getting photographed as BDM then returning to his seat.

As the charismatic President of the United States was driving toward them, one was

more concerned with a coke bottle and the other couldn't bother to stand up and

get a good look?

Rosemary described this person as "conspicuous" and someone who "disappeared

the next instant," which doesn't seem to match this scenario.

If he moved we should see him moving ala BDM, if he stayed seated with the woman...

Where are they?

DJ

And why wouldn't they be excited enough to stand to see the President and his

lovely First Lady?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a better scenario based on all the evidence, then I have never heard it.

And the "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands" would have been...?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
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...