Jump to content
The Education Forum

Whereabouts of Mr. Hudson


David Josephs
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Ken, other than the assurances of Gary Mack, on what basis do you conclude this?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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

[snip]

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.

[snip]

(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.

Thank you for posting this, Michael. The witness intimidation of Rosemary Willis

evidently continued during the HSCA investigation, as she is reported as hearing

only three shots in the HSCA report.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
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?

As I recall ... Sitzman took her eye off that area when the parade entered the plaza, which leaves a pretty good window of time for people to move around. Unless one wishes to believe that all the images have been altered, then I'd say that memories during moments of stress are far less reliable than the images themselves ... after all one witness said JFK rose up out of his seat when the first shot hit him and thats not supported by the films. I just think that some folks have made too much out of Sitzman and what she said about the black couple. I think she recalled them being there before the parade arrived and the rest was conjecture on her part which was in error according to the images.

And no ... BDM wasn't holding a rifle. We look at poor images ... those near that area and coming down the street would have had a clear view of an assassin standing there and holding a gun aimed at the President in my view.

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

Answered above. I believe they moved from that spot when the parade entered the plaza or at least by the time Betzner took his first photo BEFORE the first shot sounded.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The House select Committee made their call based on what they could see. I would like to know what they would have said once they seen Mack and White's work in conjunction with Arnold's testimony.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting this, Michael. The witness intimidation of Rosemary Willis

evidently continued during the HSCA investigation, as she is reported as hearing

only three shots in the HSCA report.

Is this the witness intimidation you're referring to? http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=109597&relPageId=14

Why do you think she failed to mention the two conspicuous figures in her interview with Texas Monthly,

to whom she gave a remarkably detailed description of the four shots she heard?

Why do you think she told Texas Monthly she believed there were six shots, when she heard only four?

Do you believe that when Rosemary told the HSCA telephone interviewers that she ran along JFK's limousine

almost (within three car lengths) to the triple underpass, that was accurate?

What do you think she meant when she said that some of the investigators were impostors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting this, Michael. The witness intimidation of Rosemary Willis

evidently continued during the HSCA investigation, as she is reported as hearing

only three shots in the HSCA report.

Is this the witness intimidation you're referring to? http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=109597&relPageId=14

Perhaps the witness intimidation she experienced on 11/22/63 carried over into

her HSCA statements? I have no idea what it would be like to have witnessed

such events while still living in Dallas at that time, under those circumstances.

Or perhaps the HSCA interviewer misrepresented her statements?

Perhaps as a 45 year-old woman in 1998 she felt more comfortable telling the truth

than as a 25 year-old woman living in Dallas in 1978.

Why do you think she failed to mention the two conspicuous figures in her interview with Texas Monthly, to whom she gave a remarkably detailed description of the four shots she heard?

I can't say. Why didn't the interviewer ask her about it?

Why do you think she told Texas Monthly she believed there were six shots, when she heard only four?

She appeared to start to explain herself, but didn't. Hard to say why, or why the interviewer didn't ask a follow up question in that regard.

Do you believe that when Rosemary told the HSCA telephone interviewers that she ran along JFK's limousine almost (within three car lengths) to the triple underpass, that was accurate?

Of course not. But I don't regard this as significant.

What do you think she meant when she said that some of the investigators were impostors?

I wish I knew. I wish the interviewer had gone into more depth with her.

I'd like to point out that the statement of Louis Witt to the HSCA conforms with Rosemary's description of him. Here is Witt to the HSCA (emphasis added):

I think I went sort of maybe halfway up the grassy area (on the north side of Elm Street),

somewhere in that vicinity. I am pretty sure I sat down....(When the motorcade approached) I think I got up and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the same time I was walking forward, walking toward the street....Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing (the umbrella) in front of me....My view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella's being open.

From the HSCA report on Willis (emphasis added):

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots.

That she described the "conspicuous" individual in the Black Dog Man location as seeming

to "disappear the next instant" is corroborated by the Moorman photo which does not show

BDM.

Was her rapid head snap at Z214-217 drawn by the sudden disappearance of this individual?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

Her description of the shot sequence does not seem to indicate a shot from the GK

that early.

In my opinion the testimony of Louis Witt and the photographic evidence corroborate

Rosemary Willis' accounts of the actions of UM and BDM.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The House select Committee made their call based on what they could see. I would like to know what they would have said once they seen Mack and White's work in conjunction with Arnold's testimony.

Bill

How would that have had an impact on their identification of a "very distinct

straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands" in Willis #5?

Again, what "very distinct straight-line feature" did Gordon Arnold have near the

region of his hands?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this email, Gary Mack has apparently issued a subtle correction to both Bill and Martin.

Well, i appreciate your and Gary's opinion of course but it's not a correction at all, Ken.

It's just an independent thought.

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

Look Ken,

both Hugh Betzner and Phil Willis were both photographing from approx. the same height level

as the area behind the retaining wall and the sidewalk. Hugh Betzner some 80cm higher than Willis.

These are not upwards shots like Moorman5 for instance.

They are straight level. Even slightely from above.

The sidewalk behind the retaining wall was on the same height level as the grass area

at the inner edge of the wall.

Darnell_1.jpg

I can't see a person standing on the sidewalk in Willis & Betzner and i doubt Hudson, Arnold

or anybody else made a duck walk as the presidential limousine approached on Elm.

I'am not just guessing. Geometry is the key to understand this pictures.

best

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no ... BDM wasn't holding a rifle.

JFK clearly wasn't shot in the throat with a rifle. The damage indicated

on the neck x-ray is inconsistent with a rifle shot, or any kind of conventional

round for that matter.

We look at poor images ...

And yet the HSCA found a "straight-line feature" that was "very distinct," in spite

of the blur in Willis and Betzner.

those near that area and coming down the street would have had a clear view of an assassin standing there and holding a gun aimed at the President in my view.

There was a prior, loud shot from behind the limo that drew the attention of lots of

people.

A man dressed as a policeman holding a firearm (not a rifle) after that loud

shot rang out would not be suspicious, imo.

And what resident of Dallas in 1963 would accuse a cop of shooting Kennedy, in contradiction of the conclusions of all officialdom?

Seems to me that would take suicidal bravery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect Gary, but if he can say with certainty that by looking at a 2D image just how far from the wall someone was standing, then his ability far exceeds my own. In fact, in speaking with Gary today, he admits that no one can say for sure how far back from the wall that figure is. That is not to say that Arnold/BDM could not have stepped towards the street and then stepped back .... a shift one way or the other still puts someone at the LOS cross pattern I discovered when I looked into all of this years ago. The fact is that there is a common cross pattern of the LOS from each photographers location to the individual seen over the wall and the photographic record told me that there is only one individual at that location.

When I look back at all of this I still find that when all the images, including the Groden Nix print is examined ... there was only one person between the wall and the fence. There were no others there - plain and simple. One individual who Yarborough referred to as a man who appeared to have his military training on what to do during a shooting. It's unfortunate that Ralph didn't give a better description of this man's clothing in the parts that made it into the interview, but that doesn't mean that he didn't give it and it was edited out. I know that Golz told me that Yarborough said that he saw the man Earl had written about and that man was Gordon Arnold. However, regardless of anything else ... there was only one person standing above the wall when Moorman took her photo ... and the Nix film supports this. The Nix film picks up this area 1.3 seconds before the head shot.

I am aware that some have sought to say that no one is visible in Moorman's photo, but that is an impossibility when two cameras are filming the same area and both show an individual ... the movie film with this person in motion and moving down towards the ground.

As far as Sitzman goes ... around 45 seconds elapsed from the time the parade came into the plaza when she looked off towards Main and Houston and she never said she had looked back to the walkway. If there were two people on the bench the last time she looked in their direction, then they obviously got up and left that area before Betzner took his photo. It was impossible for Moorman's photo to have been altered for she had it still with her when filmed about a half an hour following the shooting. I do not think the Nix film was altered for it supports Moorman's photo.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect Gary, but if he can say with certainty that by looking at a 2D image just how far from the wall someone was standing, then his ability far exceeds my own. In fact, in speaking with Gary today, he admits that no one can say for sure how far back from the wall that figure is. That is not to say that Arnold/BDM could not have stepped towards the street and then stepped back .... a shift one way or the other still puts someone at the LOS cross pattern I discovered when I looked into all of this years ago. The fact is that there is a common cross pattern of the LOS from each photographers location to the individual seen over the wall and the photographic record told me that there is only one individual at that location.

When I look back at all of this I still find that when all the images, including the Groden Nix print is examined ... there was only one person between the wall and the fence. There were no others there - plain and simple. One individual who Yarborough referred to as a man who appeared to have his military training on what to do during a shooting. It's unfortunate that Ralph didn't give a better description of this man's clothing in the parts that made it into the interview, but that doesn't mean that he didn't give it and it was edited out. I know that Golz told me that Yarborough said that he saw the man Earl had written about and that man was Gordon Arnold. However, regardless of anything else ... there was only one person standing above the wall when Moorman took her photo ... and the Nix film supports this. The Nix film picks up this area 1.3 seconds before the head shot.

I am aware that some have sought to say that no one is visible in Moorman's photo, but that is an impossibility when two cameras are filming the same area and both show an individual ... the movie film with this person in motion and moving down towards the ground.

As far as Sitzman goes ... around 45 seconds elapsed from the time the parade came into the plaza when she looked off towards Main and Houston and she never said she had looked back to the walkway. If there were two people on the bench the last time she looked in their direction, then they obviously got up and left that area before Betzner took his photo. It was impossible for Moorman's photo to have been altered for she had it still with her when filmed about a half an hour following the shooting. I do not think the Nix film was altered for it supports Moorman's photo.

Bill Miller

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.

So Bill... Sitzman is very specific that she sees and hears them just after z313 and that they had been there a while... if GA was back there based on his lone testimony and the moorman interpretation, then we should definitely see the 2 kids on the bench in some picture, especially wills5 and betzner. I do not support alteration to remove these 2 kids so I have to ask again... if Sitzman is telling the truth we ought to be able to find a photo of someone sitting on that bench and eating.... or at least standing back there...

Cliff: I can't suppose why a person does what they do... so I wont speculate... but you can help by determining where they were in the last 5 minutes before 12:33.

Stating categorically that there is only one person behind the wall in Moorman - GA - does not seem supported by the photographic evidence. I thought Duncan easily showed how the size of GA in moorman is much too large for him to be standing there

Seems more to this than just GA and Moorman and Badgeman and BDM.... where arew those kids or whoeve left that sack lunch and coke bottle there?

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect Gary, but if he can say with certainty that by looking at a 2D image just how far from the wall someone was standing, then his ability far exceeds my own. In fact, in speaking with Gary today, he admits that no one can say for sure how far back from the wall that figure is. That is not to say that Arnold/BDM could not have stepped towards the street and then stepped back .... a shift one way or the other still puts someone at the LOS cross pattern I discovered when I looked into all of this years ago. The fact is that there is a common cross pattern of the LOS from each photographers location to the individual seen over the wall and the photographic record told me that there is only one individual at that location.

When I look back at all of this I still find that when all the images, including the Groden Nix print is examined ... there was only one person between the wall and the fence. There were no others there - plain and simple. One individual who Yarborough referred to as a man who appeared to have his military training on what to do during a shooting. It's unfortunate that Ralph didn't give a better description of this man's clothing in the parts that made it into the interview, but that doesn't mean that he didn't give it and it was edited out. I know that Golz told me that Yarborough said that he saw the man Earl had written about and that man was Gordon Arnold. However, regardless of anything else ... there was only one person standing above the wall when Moorman took her photo ... and the Nix film supports this. The Nix film picks up this area 1.3 seconds before the head shot.

I am aware that some have sought to say that no one is visible in Moorman's photo, but that is an impossibility when two cameras are filming the same area and both show an individual ... the movie film with this person in motion and moving down towards the ground.

As far as Sitzman goes ... around 45 seconds elapsed from the time the parade came into the plaza when she looked off towards Main and Houston and she never said she had looked back to the walkway. If there were two people on the bench the last time she looked in their direction, then they obviously got up and left that area before Betzner took his photo. It was impossible for Moorman's photo to have been altered for she had it still with her when filmed about a half an hour following the shooting. I do not think the Nix film was altered for it supports Moorman's photo.

Bill Miller

Bill,

I supported you years ago, when you first posted your theory about GA being BDM. Your analysis of the photos then and now, along with GA's own testimony prior to any knowledge of the figures in Moorman, has answered and put to rest the mystery of BDM for me. As far as Sitzman's testimony, it doesn't ring true regarding the black couple. And all of the subsequent bs and pontificating on measuring GA and the impossiblity of his being where he no doubt was has been a distraction. Now, with Martin's gif of the movement once again supporting GA's story, I have to wonder what it takes to convince some folks. By the way, upon viewing the end of the gif, it appears to me that I can make out a figure sitting on the ground, with what looks to be a military style cap on his head in that position, with his right arm across his right knee, as if he has just sat back upright. I'd love to see a slower gif.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, with Martin's gif of the movement once again supporting GA's story, I have to wonder what it takes to convince some folks.

1) What "distinct straight-line feature" did Arnold have "near the region of the hands"?

2) Why did Arnold identify his location at a point west of the concrete wall?

3) Why did Arnold "disappear the next instant" several seconds before a shot was

fired from behind the picket fence, or did Rosemary Willis get it wrong?

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.

. . . the HSCA identified a "very distinct straight line feature" in the region

of BDM's hands...did the Mom also bring her broom with her and the baby??

No shooter. No Mom. No baby. And no broom. Just two kids, a boy and a girl between 18 and 21 -- as barely older, 23 year-old Marilyn Sitzman described them -- standing together at the top of the stairway. That's why we don't see them sitting on the bench behind the wall in the Betzner and Willis photos. The girl is blocking a view of most of the boy to her right in much the same way that Running Man blocks a view of most of Emmett Hudson to his right on the steps below. She may have been holding a rolled-up umbrella. After the shots began, but before the last shot, the two kids took cover behind the wall -- which is why we don't see them in the Moorman photo -- and were soon joined there by late twenties, white not black, Running Man who called back, urging 58 year-old Emmett Hudson and 60 year-old Francis Mudd to get down, which they did, Hudson on the steps and Mudd in the grass to his right. Within 10 seconds or so after the last shot, the kids got up and ran to the back, according to Sitzman. However, they weren't getting up from the bench, but rather from the ground behind the wall.

Ken

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...