Jump to content
The Education Forum

Whereabouts of Mr. Hudson


David Josephs
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

So Rosemary Willis got it wrong? There was no "conspicuous person" standing behind

the concrete wall? Isn't it interesting that she and Louis Witt both described

UmbrellaMan in the same way, but Willis was completely wrong about BDM...hmmm?

And the HSCA got it wrong when they identified a single individual in Willis #5?

Fine by me, but if you are promoting this as an unchallenged fact, well, I think you're

wrong.

Sitzman was busy with Zapruder as the limo came down the street. Rosemary Willis

was running in that direction and clearly reacted to something that occured

on the knoll 5-6 seconds before the head shot.

And let's not forget Ike Altgens suggestion there were policemen in the area.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Herb... you gonna say that 59 witnesses who saw and heard shots from the GK also does not "ring true". What about her statement or person leads you to believe her statement doesn't ring true?

For what purpose would Sitzman make that up?

and if "made up" please explain how the coke, bag and broken glass with liquid winds up where they are, who put them there

and finally, since that bottle is not in any other photo... when did the coke bottle get put on the corner of the wall?

Ken...

So it sounds like you are agreeing with me... that BDM is really the boy and girl standing together... that makes sense to me as well which would explain why they disappeared so quickly yet I would place the boy in front based on Rosemary Willis' and other's description...

I wonder if Arnold ever mentions these two sitting on the bench having lunch... Bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

These questions seem somewhat odd for the evidence stands on its own merit. To start with ...

If Rosemary said the BDM disappeared after a few seconds before the head shot was fired, then she is obviously mistaken for the Nix film clearly shows that someone went to the ground AFTER the head shot. That can only mean that Rosemary is mistaken for I believe the photographic record concerning this discussion is not altered.

West of the concrete wall ... the fence is west of the concrete wall ... the underpass is west of the concrete wall ... and the figure seen in all the film sources I presented are west of the wall, thus Arnold said 'west of the wall' because he was west of the wall.

The only straight line feature that I see in the film sources is the shade line to sunspot on his person.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Ken

Hi Ken!

I thought Sitzman said when she last saw the black couple that they were sitting on the bench. Are you sure yuou cited her correctly?

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the HSCA got it wrong when they identified a single individual in Willis #5?

I think the HSCA was correct in saying someone was there.

Sitzman was busy with Zapruder as the limo came down the street. Rosemary Willis

was running in that direction and clearly reacted to something that occured

on the knoll 5-6 seconds before the head shot.

And let's not forget Ike Altgens suggestion there were policemen in the area.

Sitzman was busy watching the parade coming towards her ... least ways that is what the photographic record shows. Sitzman's face is visible in the Nix film and I do not see her head turn towards the RR yard when the last shot(s) were fired. I can however say that I saw a Nix print that showed only person standing beyond the wall starting at 1.3 seconds before the kill shot to JFK and that person went to the ground AFTER the head shot was fired.

Nice people in moments of stress can be wrong in their recollections and really be telling the event how they remember it, and pictures can be made to lie, but in this case I ruled the latter possibility out because I don't think Moorman was capable of altering her Polaroid in under 35 minutes of the shooting even if she had a photo lab in her coat pocket. Continuing to arguing against a photographic record can only be justified if the photos and films can be shown to have been altered in some way. So far it appears that the only person who got it right was Arnold and no one has yet to offer a reason as to how Arnold could have gotten the sequence of events right had he not of been there.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please explain how the coke, bag and broken glass with liquid winds up where they are, who put them there

and finally, since that bottle is not in any other photo... when did the coke bottle get put on the corner of the wall?

I wonder if Arnold ever mentions these two sitting on the bench having lunch... Bill?

The lunch bag and such was obviously left on the bench ... its the timing of when it was left there that makes people curious. As far as when the bottle was placed on the wall - who knows. The photo showing the bottle on the wall with the dark suited man passing by also shows another man ahead of him ... maybe he put the bottle there ... its all speculative.

Arnold never mentioned the black couple as far as I know, but Gordon claimed to have come into that area just as the parade was coming through and it was then he saw it was the President. It appears the black couple may have left the area to maybe get a better view as soon as the cheers went up that caused Sitzman to also focus her attention on. Again its all speculative.

What isn't speculative is that Arnold described a shot coming over his left side at a specific time which lead to his hitting the ground and that is supported by the photographic record. So how did Arnold know this???

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

These questions seem somewhat odd for the evidence stands on its own merit. To start with ...

If Rosemary said the BDM disappeared after a few seconds before the head shot was fired, then she is obviously mistaken for the Nix film clearly shows that someone went to the ground AFTER the head shot.

No, that's not what she said. She didn't identify exactly when this individual

appeared to "disappear the next instant." It is her action in the Zapruder film 5 to 6

seconds before the head-shot, the rapid movement of her head toward the grassy knoll

at Z214-217, which appears to coincide with the sudden disappearance of BDM.

Something startling drew her attention to the knoll in that time frame.

That can only mean that Rosemary is mistaken for I believe the photographic record concerning this discussion is not altered.

It means no such thing, with all due respect.

West of the concrete wall ... the fence is west of the concrete wall ... the underpass is west of the concrete wall ... and the figure seen in all the film sources I presented are west of the wall, thus Arnold said 'west of the wall' because he was west of the wall.

That's not where Rosemary put BDM, and that's not where the HSCA put BDM.

The only straight line feature that I see in the film sources is the shade line to sunspot on his person.

Bill

So the HSCA got it wrong? There was no "distinct straight-line feature" "near the

region of the hands"?

Do we have any reason to dismiss the HSCA analysis on any basis other than its

inconvenience to certain theories?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken...

So it sounds like you are agreeing with me... that BDM is really the boy and girl standing together... that makes sense to me as well which would explain why they disappeared so quickly yet I would place the boy in front based on Rosemary Willis' and other's description...

David,

The problem I have with this scenario is that it seems like a strange way

to view the on-coming motorcade, standing behind someone. I'm not saying

it isn't possible, and perhaps the "very distinct straight-line feature" was

something innocent like an umbrella or a coke bottle, but it strikes me as

suspicious that JFK was struck in the throat from the front and about a second

later a figure with a straight-line feature in the region of their hands suddenly

disappears.

And we still have Ike Altgens suggesting there were cops in the area.

Although it is obviously not perfectly analogous, consider the killing of RFK

in a similar light: a loud shot fired from the "patsy" position draws attention

to the front of RFK while the kill shot likely comes from a security guard behind

RFK.

In Dealey Plaza the "patsy shot" came from behind, while the throat shot soon

followed from the front, perhaps from a silenced weapon.

Great thread, btw, David.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/

No, that's not what she said. She didn't identify exactly when this individual

appeared to "disappear the next instant." It is her action in the Zapruder film 5 to 6

seconds before the head-shot, the rapid movement of her head toward the grassy knoll

at Z214-217, which appears to coincide with the sudden disappearance of BDM.

Something startling drew her attention to the knoll in that time frame.

Cliff ... does it not make sense to you that Rosemary who was chasing alongside the limo and turned back towards the sound of the first shot and then turned her attention back in the direction of the President who was off in the direction of the knoll? Not every action and reaction has to be considered sinister, unless of course it adds excitement for those who seek it.

That's not where Rosemary put BDM, and that's not where the HSCA put BDM.

Explain ... for every time I have spoken to anyone about the knoll ... we refer to the wall as being east of the fence. And I will mention this once again ... you recall the crossing LOS that I did on an overhead view from the Records Building? If so, regardless of what illusion that one may get from certain locations to the wall ... there is a connecting LOS between each of the photographers. I will also add that Groden didn't think much of the HSCA so-called photo analyst. While I don't have any criticism of any one person because I do not know them, but I can speak about the LOS's that I checked in the plaza and I have reported them in the past many times when talking about this subject. I certainly do not recall the HSCA doing this and I believe it to certainly be relevant ... just as relevant as trying to determine the distance something is from a wall in a 2D image. In fact, when I used stand ins to get the alignments from the Moorman location ... I had asked that they not tell me where they were standing until I matched the view to the Moorman Polaroid. It was then I asked over the walkie-talkie where they were standing and it was in the grass about a foot or so off the sidewalk. The HSCA people that Groden wasn't impressed with didn't do any of these things that I am aware of.

So the HSCA got it wrong? There was no "distinct straight-line feature" "near the

region of the hands"?

Do we have any reason to dismiss the HSCA analysis on any basis other than its

inconvenience to certain theories?

The HSCA didn't have the work that Mack and White did to cross reference their observations with. I will explain this as simply as I can and if anyone cannot follow it, then I do not know how to make them aware ...

The Moorman photo shows someone in light clothing standing beyond the dog leg in the wall. When I walked up to the Willis and Betzner locations ... a person standing where we had Arnold also looked to be where the BDM is seen. This can be tested if anyone really cares to do it. The Nix film shows this individual as well. The figure in the Moorman Polaroid appears to be holding something up near the eye to me. The Nix film shows the figure going to the ground (not 5 seconds before the kill shot), but immediately after the kill shot to the President. These things cannot be ignored if one is truly interested in all the evidence. Continually citing the HSCA who didn't have ALL this information is meaningless for you are talking about someone offering an opinion based on only a partial puzzle whereas we have since then obtained more pieces to work with.

Arnold claimed to have done things that he could not have known they would later be supported by the photographic record and no one has explained how that was possible unless he was actually there. I do not believe that the individual seen in the Moorman Polaroid ran out to the spot while someone else ran away during the few moments that Rosemary looked away. The odds of this happening do not even pass the laugh test in my view. Add when one considers the same sun spot falling on each at the same location ... it proves that notion to be even more absurd (in my opinion).

I welcome another view, but unless it deals with the things I have laid out here, then its a view unsupported by the photographic record. I take it that we agree that the images I speak of in this matter were not altered???

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken...

So it sounds like you are agreeing with me... that BDM is really the boy and girl standing together... that makes sense to me as well which would explain why they disappeared so quickly yet I would place the boy in front based on Rosemary Willis' and other's description...

David,

. . . it strikes me as suspicious that JFK was struck in the throat from the front and about a second later a figure with a straight-line feature in the region of their hands suddenly disappears. . .

That shot from behind the fence, and behind them, is why they disappeared. . . when they dropped down and took cover behind the retaining wall.

Edited by Ken Rheberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You have a lot of fantasy Ken. lol

Nice story but nothing of the photographic evidence support it.

bdmradius96.png

willisbdmsitzman-1.jpg

best

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herb... you gonna say that 59 witnesses who saw and heard shots from the GK also does not "ring true". What about her statement or person leads you to believe her statement doesn't ring true?

For what purpose would Sitzman make that up?

and if "made up" please explain how the coke, bag and broken glass with liquid winds up where they are, who put them there

and finally, since that bottle is not in any other photo... when did the coke bottle get put on the corner of the wall?

Ken...

So it sounds like you are agreeing with me... that BDM is really the boy and girl standing together... that makes sense to me as well which would explain why they disappeared so quickly yet I would place the boy in front based on Rosemary Willis' and other's description...

I wonder if Arnold ever mentions these two sitting on the bench having lunch... Bill?

I don't understand your question regarding the shots from the grassy knoll. I believe GA was there as he said and that shot(s) were fired from the knoll.

I'm not saying Sitzman mad anything up, just mis-remembered the timing, as did Rosemary by just a few seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken...

So it sounds like you are agreeing with me... that BDM is really the boy and girl standing together... that makes sense to me as well which would explain why they disappeared so quickly yet I would place the boy in front based on Rosemary Willis' and other's description...

David,

. . . it strikes me as suspicious that JFK was struck in the throat from the front and about a second later a figure with a straight-line feature in the region of their hands suddenly disappears. . .

That shot from behind the fence, and behind them, is why they disappeared. . . when they dropped down and took cover behind the retaining wall.

Ok. Rosemary Willis got it wrong and the HSCA analysis of Willis #5 got it wrong.

I don't buy it, personally.

Rosemary Willis had the best view of the area and described a "conspicuous"

person, the HSCA analysis identified one person, but according to the above

scenario one person was watching the motorcade while standing behind someone else

and then they dropped to the ground simultaneously.

A tough sell, imo.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying Sitzman mad anything up, just mis-remembered the timing, as did Rosemary by just a few seconds.

What did Rosemary Willis misremember? She never identified the moment BDM disappeared.

We might be able to infer that her rapid headsnap at Z214-217 was in response

to the sudden disappearance of BDM, since her later statements don't place a shot from

the knoll until almost 6 seconds later.

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

It is a fact that something drew her attention to the GK Z214-217.

It is a fact that she described this individual as "conspicuous," which does not

match what Arnold said about his location further to the west of the retaining wall,

and does not match the couple theory or the mom-n-babe theory.

It is a fact that R. Willis did not describe a shot from the knoll until the head shot.

So, if it wasn't a shot from the GK she was responding to, what was it?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Ken

Hi Ken!

I thought Sitzman said when she last saw the black couple that they were sitting on the bench. Are you sure yuou cited her correctly?

Bill

Hi Bill!

In the Sitzman interview transcript, Josiah Thompson asks her if she had ever noticed the young couple moving from the bench [where she had observed them prior to the motorcade arriving] to the end of the wall. Her answer is:

"No. They may have. I don't know."

The reason she didn't know if they had moved at any time from the bench to the end of the wall was that her eyes were now following the motorcade. But she concedes that they could have moved. Thompson concurs with her reason for not knowing when he says:

"Of course, you were looking at the parade at that point, and you wouldn't have seen what they did."

Sitzman then wraps up that part of the interview by saying she always felt that the couple had remained sitting on the bench because when she looked back in that area after the shots had been fired they were in the process of getting up from the bench.

It's easy to understand how she might think they were getting up from the bench since they had dropped to the ground right in front of it. When they stood up, it appeared that they had gotten up from the bench which was facing the street between her and them.

By the way, this doesn't preclude Gordon Arnold from also being there.

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...