Jump to content
The Education Forum

Whereabouts of Mr. Hudson


David Josephs
 Share

Recommended Posts

Whether BDM was Gordon Arnold, the black couple, or a shooter dressed as a cop,

I think there is a general consensus here that the activity of BDM was related

to the frontal shot to JFK's throat, which is the important issue.

You must have a far more advanced analytical mind than my own.

If one believes that Arnold or a black couple was the BDM image ... are you thinking there are people who think Arnold or the black couple shot JFK in the throat? I do not think the BDM figure had anything to do with the shooting other than being a witness to it.

BDM is seen before the first shot was fired (Z186). Other than a slight camera angle difference thus shifting the background slightly with the foreground ... the Willis photo shows no change. (Z202) The figure still standing above the wall in Moorman (Z315.6) still hasn't been effected by the shooting. Still standing in plain view ... not ducking down or running ... but when the last shot was fired, this individual moved left and down as if heading to the ground. My point being is that there is no evidence that BDM's activity was related to the throat shot to JFK in my view.

Bill

Bill,

You think BDM can be seen in Moorman?

And you think there was ashot after Z-315.6?

Todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bill,

Yes, I do not believe the photos (or films) were altered and yes, I agree that newspaper reports in situations like this during moments of mayhem are often unreliable. However there are several reports of this, from different reporters, and not just newspaper reports but also radio reports. I have a file of these reports that I am trying to find (things are still in a disarray due to a move)..

If you are referring to a black couple fleeing ... my recollection was that the couple in the reports were on the Underpass and not the knoll. I seem to recall seeing a post shooting photo of the underpass which showed a black man on the north side of it. Hargis also seems to be talking about those people..Mr. HARGIS - Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say, "Get going," or "get going,"

Mr. STERN - Someone inside--

Mr. HARGIS - I don't know whether it was the Secret Service car, and I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off, and I stopped and got off my motorcycle and ran to the right-hand side of the street, behind the light pole.

Mr. STERN - Just a minute. Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the source of the shots?

Mr. HARGIS - Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--Just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from.

Mr. STERN - You were clear that the sounds were sounds of shots?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes. sir: I knew they were shots.

Mr. STERN - All right, what did you do then? You say you parked your motorcycle?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes, uh-huh----

Mr. STERN - Where?

Mr. HARGIS - It was to the left-hand side of the street from---south side of Elm Street.

Mr. STERN - And then what did you---

Mr. HARGIS - I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered seeing people scattering and running and then I looked.

Mr. STERN - People on the overpass?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes ; people that were there to see the President I guess- They were taking pictures and things. It was kind of a confused crowd. I don't know whether they were trying to hide or see what was happening or what-and then I looked over to the Texas School Book Depository Building, and no one that was standing at the base of the building was--seemed to be looking up at the building or anything like they knew where the shots were coming from so---

Mr. STERN - How about the people on the incline on the north side of Elm Street? Do you recall their behavior?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes; I remember a man holding a child. Fell to the gound and covered his child with his body, and people running everywhere, trying to get out of there, I guess, and they were about as confused as to where the shots were coming from as everyone else was.

Mr. STERN - And did you run up the incline on your side of Elm Street?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes, sir; I ran to the light post, and I ran up to this kind of a little wall, brick wall up there to see if I could get a better look on the bridge, and, of course. I was looking all around that place by that time. I knew it couldn't have come from the county courthouse because that place was swarming with deputy sheriffs over there.

Mr. STERN - Did you get behind the picket fence that runs from the overpass to the concrete wall?

Mr. HARGIS - No.

Mr. STERN - On the north side of Elm Street?

Mr. HARGIS - No, no; I don't remember any picket fence. .

As for "the Nix film showing the one lone individual up there going to the ground", I'm not convinced the Nix film shows any such thing. It shows movement, I agree, movement can be seen, and that it appears to be downward movement of something, but perhaps that's just an arm coming down. To definitely say as you do that it's a "lone individual…going to the ground" is nowhere near certain.

It was certain to those of us looking at Groden's 35MM film in the lab. The figure was moving to his left and down. Maybe you have not seen it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen on the print we saw in the lab. I am only able to share with you what I witnessed.

I don't believe that the 1st shot occurred between Betzner 3 (Z-186) and Willis 5 (Z202

I am aware that there are people who believe a lot of things for what ever reason ... I can only go by cross referencing the witnesses to one another. Betzner said he snapped his photo and then the first shot sounded. Willis said he heard the first shot and snapped his picture. Mary Woodward said the President was looking at her who he was passing and smiling when the first shot sounded. She went on to say how the President then stopped his wave and brought his hand in towards him. This can be seen on the Zapruder film between Z186 and Z202. Of course this doesn't preclude someone from ignoring this evidence and going with something else ... its just my view.

As for "none of the assassination films and photos show broken glass along the walkway",, I'm not sure that any should. The only film that really shows ANYTHING on the walkway (there are no "photos" as you imply) is the Darnell film, and the resolution on available copies and stills coupled with the view point of the camera, is nowhere near what is needed to be able to distinguish whether or not there was glass present.

I was thinking of the Flynn photo taken at the bench, but fair enough. The Darnell film shows only a puddle on the sidewalk. I would ask that you break a few bottles on the sidewalk and see if the liquid inside splatters in all directions or stays in a contained puddle as pouring something onto the ground does. The Darnell puddle on the sidewalk is well known, but the last time I remembered it being debated, the general observation was that it was a puddle and not a splattered substance.

Regarding the broken bottle, remember Jean Hills sno-cone from her WC testimony? Her diagram made during her testimony, Hill (Jean) Exhibit No. 5 at 20H158 places this on the walkway (look carefully at the exhibit, the stairway is drawn in and that is where she places the "blood"). I speculate that what she took to be a dropped sno-cone (ice and red liquid in her mind) was actually broken glass fragments and red pop (looking like ice and red liquid).

Todd

As much as I liked Jean ... I also remember a few other things she had said that wasn't accurate. But if we are talking a smashed bottle with pieces that could make someone think they were looking like crushed ice, then I must lean to thinking that the puddle seen in the Darnell film must be another magic bullet.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

You think BDM can be seen in Moorman?

And you think there was ashot after Z-315.6?

Todd

I have made countless post stating that the BDM is the same figure in Moorman's Polaroid ... I think I even stated this several times in this thread.

I do not think there was a shot after Z315.6. I think the head shot was fired between Z312 and Z313 with the last shot Between Z315 and Z316. I believe this caused what Kellerman described as a sonic-boom sound.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Yes, I do not believe the photos (or films) were altered and yes, I agree that newspaper reports in situations like this during moments of mayhem are often unreliable. However there are several reports of this, from different reporters, and not just newspaper reports but also radio reports. I have a file of these reports that I am trying to find (things are still in a disarray due to a move)..

If you are referring to a black couple fleeing ... my recollection was that the couple in the reports were on the Underpass and not the knoll. I seem to recall seeing a post shooting photo of the underpass which showed a black man on the north side of it. Hargis also seems to be talking about those people..Mr. HARGIS - Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say, "Get going," or "get going,"

Mr. STERN - Someone inside--

Mr. HARGIS - I don't know whether it was the Secret Service car, and I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off, and I stopped and got off my motorcycle and ran to the right-hand side of the street, behind the light pole.

Mr. STERN - Just a minute. Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the source of the shots?

Mr. HARGIS - Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--Just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from.

Mr. STERN - You were clear that the sounds were sounds of shots?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes. sir: I knew they were shots.

Mr. STERN - All right, what did you do then? You say you parked your motorcycle?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes, uh-huh----

Mr. STERN - Where?

Mr. HARGIS - It was to the left-hand side of the street from---south side of Elm Street.

Mr. STERN - And then what did you---

Mr. HARGIS - I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered seeing people scattering and running and then I looked.

Mr. STERN - People on the overpass?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes ; people that were there to see the President I guess- They were taking pictures and things. It was kind of a confused crowd. I don't know whether they were trying to hide or see what was happening or what-and then I looked over to the Texas School Book Depository Building, and no one that was standing at the base of the building was--seemed to be looking up at the building or anything like they knew where the shots were coming from so---

Mr. STERN - How about the people on the incline on the north side of Elm Street? Do you recall their behavior?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes; I remember a man holding a child. Fell to the gound and covered his child with his body, and people running everywhere, trying to get out of there, I guess, and they were about as confused as to where the shots were coming from as everyone else was.

Mr. STERN - And did you run up the incline on your side of Elm Street?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes, sir; I ran to the light post, and I ran up to this kind of a little wall, brick wall up there to see if I could get a better look on the bridge, and, of course. I was looking all around that place by that time. I knew it couldn't have come from the county courthouse because that place was swarming with deputy sheriffs over there.

Mr. STERN - Did you get behind the picket fence that runs from the overpass to the concrete wall?

Mr. HARGIS - No.

Mr. STERN - On the north side of Elm Street?

Mr. HARGIS - No, no; I don't remember any picket fence. .

As for "the Nix film showing the one lone individual up there going to the ground", I'm not convinced the Nix film shows any such thing. It shows movement, I agree, movement can be seen, and that it appears to be downward movement of something, but perhaps that's just an arm coming down. To definitely say as you do that it's a "lone individual…going to the ground" is nowhere near certain.

It was certain to those of us looking at Groden's 35MM film in the lab. The figure was moving to his left and down. Maybe you have not seen it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen on the print we saw in the lab. I am only able to share with you what I witnessed.

I don't believe that the 1st shot occurred between Betzner 3 (Z-186) and Willis 5 (Z202

I am aware that there are people who believe a lot of things for what ever reason ... I can only go by cross referencing the witnesses to one another. Betzner said he snapped his photo and then the first shot sounded. Willis said he heard the first shot and snapped his picture. Mary Woodward said the President was looking at her who he was passing and smiling when the first shot sounded. She went on to say how the President then stopped his wave and brought his hand in towards him. This can be seen on the Zapruder film between Z186 and Z202. Of course this doesn't preclude someone from ignoring this evidence and going with something else ... its just my view.

As for "none of the assassination films and photos show broken glass along the walkway",, I'm not sure that any should. The only film that really shows ANYTHING on the walkway (there are no "photos" as you imply) is the Darnell film, and the resolution on available copies and stills coupled with the view point of the camera, is nowhere near what is needed to be able to distinguish whether or not there was glass present.

I was thinking of the Flynn photo taken at the bench, but fair enough. The Darnell film shows only a puddle on the sidewalk. I would ask that you break a few bottles on the sidewalk and see if the liquid inside splatters in all directions or stays in a contained puddle as pouring something onto the ground does. The Darnell puddle on the sidewalk is well known, but the last time I remembered it being debated, the general observation was that it was a puddle and not a splattered substance.

Regarding the broken bottle, remember Jean Hills sno-cone from her WC testimony? Her diagram made during her testimony, Hill (Jean) Exhibit No. 5 at 20H158 places this on the walkway (look carefully at the exhibit, the stairway is drawn in and that is where she places the "blood"). I speculate that what she took to be a dropped sno-cone (ice and red liquid in her mind) was actually broken glass fragments and red pop (looking like ice and red liquid).

Todd

As much as I liked Jean ... I also remember a few other things she had said that wasn't accurate. But if we are talking a smashed bottle with pieces that could make someone think they were looking like crushed ice, then I must lean to thinking that the puddle seen in the Darnell film must be another magic bullet.

Bill

Bill,

Yes, the Cancellare or Cabluck (I can’t recall which right now) photo shows what appears to be a black man on the overpass, partially visible. But a black man does not equate with a black couple. But regardless, my believe in the black couple is in no way dependent on Hargis.

I’ve seen the Groden Nix work in his videos. You can’t make out any real human features. There is motion of something moving in an arc like fashion from right to left and from high to low. As I said before, it could easily be an arm moving. But like I said, to definitely say as you do that it's a "lone individual…going to the ground" is nowhere near certain, and is nothing but speculation.

“The figure was moving to his left and down.” …Ah, so now Gorden’s Nix work is definitive enough that you’ve determined gender. Exactly how did you do that?

Let’s save the timing of the first shot for another day.

The Flynn photo doesn’t even show the sidewalk. And what, you think that the Darnell film proves that there was absolutley 100% no spatter in addition to the obvious puddle? You must have that super-duper version of the Darnell film, shot in color HD with Darnell zooming in on the puddle. C’mon Bill.

Why couldn’t a very hurried look at a broken bottle of red pop on the ground cause Jean Hill to think it was a dropped sno cone - she thought there was a dog in the car with JFK, for God’s sake.

Todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

You think BDM can be seen in Moorman?

And you think there was ashot after Z-315.6?

Todd

I have made countless post stating that the BDM is the same figure in Moorman's Polaroid ... I think I even stated this several times in this thread.

I do not think there was a shot after Z315.6. I think the head shot was fired between Z312 and Z313 with the last shot Between Z315 and Z316. I believe this caused what Kellerman described as a sonic-boom sound.

Bill

Bill,

I know you've said that BDM is the same figure in Moorman's Polaroid , I just can't believe it, given that no human is visible behind the wall in Mooreman.

Todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether BDM was Gordon Arnold, the black couple, or a shooter dressed as a cop,

I think there is a general consensus here that the activity of BDM was related

to the frontal shot to JFK's throat, which is the important issue.

You must have a far more advanced analytical mind than my own.

If one believes that Arnold or a black couple was the BDM image ... are you thinking there are people who think Arnold or the black couple shot JFK in the throat?

No, I'm saying that they ducked down in response to the shot behind them. That their

movement was associated with the throat shot.

Isn't that what Arnold said?

I do not think the BDM figure had anything to do with the shooting other than being a witness to it.

Yes, you've made that quite clear.

BDM is seen before the first shot was fired (Z186). Other than a slight camera angle difference thus shifting the background slightly with the foreground ... the Willis photo shows no change. (Z202) The figure still standing above the wall in Moorman (Z315.6) still hasn't been effected by the shooting. Still standing in plain view ... not ducking down or running ... but when the last shot was fired, this individual moved left and down as if heading to the ground. My point being is that there is no evidence that BDM's activity was related to the throat shot to JFK in my view.

Bill

David quoted GA as saying that shots were fired after he ducked down.

That isn't correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as I was panning down in this direction, just as I got to about this position, a shot came right past my left ear, and that meant it would have had to have come from this direction. And that’s when I fell down, and to me it seemed like a second shot was at least fired over my head. There was a bunch of report [sic] going on in this particular area at that time.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm

Sorry Bill... GA could not have been standing at z313 if he hears shots fired over him.

Yes he has knowledge of the events... but at the same time his own testimony removes him from the Moorman photo...

BDM MUST be either Hudson or one of the two black "kids" Sitzman and others see.

Badgeman and Hatman are simply too small to be where they need to be

And then there is the Hatman to the west, behind the tree, where all the muddy footprints and cigarette butts were found.

NOT saying he has anything to do with BDM... just that the BM trio was, imo, not there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as I was panning down in this direction, just as I got to about this position, a shot came right past my left ear, and that meant it would have had to have come from this direction. And that's when I fell down, and to me it seemed like a second shot was at least fired over my head. There was a bunch of report [sic] going on in this particular area at that time.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm

Sorry Bill... GA could not have been standing at z313 if he hears shots fired over him.

Yes he has knowledge of the events... but at the same time his own testimony removes him from the Moorman photo...

Please explain, DJ. We have two film sources showing someone in the Arnold location doing what he said occurred and you simply say his testimony removes him from the Moorman photo. You are aware aren't you that when he says the President got to 'this position' that he is demonstrating the limo's location at the time of the head shot. Yarborough independently reads Golz article and contacts Golz telling him that he saw the man mentioned in Earl's article. Yarborough in his TV interview says that he knew that this individual had had his training on what to do when in the line of fire.

So please explain yourself in detail if you will.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying that they ducked down in response to the shot behind them. That their

movement was associated with the throat shot.

Isn't that what Arnold said?

That's not what Arnold said. Arnold pointed to a location that the limo had reached when the shot came past his ear. Arnold goes onto say what he did after this. The Nix film shows just what Arnold claimed to have happened and where the limo was when it happened. How hard can that be to follow when the Nix film and Moorman's photo show where both the limo was when the figure above the knoll went to the ground.

I'll also mention something I read, but cannot find it at the moment .... The black couple would not have had a need to duck down before any shots were fired. The Willis photo was exposed within a half of a second of that shot and no one is sitting on the bench so they could duck down ... and no one seems to have changed locations right through to when the Nix camera started filming before the head shot to the President.

I often wonder if we were talking about a non-related JFK event if people would have as hard of a time following the evidence.

David quoted GA as saying that shots were fired after he ducked down.

That isn't correct?

Arnold said he hit the ground after a shot came past his ear. He said that he believes he heard another shot after that. There were other witnesses who thought they heard a shot or shots after the kill shot to JFK. Kellerman called it a sonic boom type sound. Maybe that is what Gordon heard or maybe it was cycle backfire ... its all speculative on that matter. The undeniable fact is that the Nix film supports the timing of what Arnold said.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as I was panning down in this direction, just as I got to about this position, a shot came right past my left ear, and that meant it would have had to have come from this direction. And that's when I fell down, and to me it seemed like a second shot was at least fired over my head. There was a bunch of report [sic] going on in this particular area at that time.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm

Sorry Bill... GA could not have been standing at z313 if he hears shots fired over him.

Yes he has knowledge of the events... but at the same time his own testimony removes him from the Moorman photo...

Please explain, DJ. We have two film sources showing someone in the Arnold location doing what he said occurred and you simply say his testimony removes him from the Moorman photo. You are aware aren't you that when he says the President got to 'this position' that he is demonstrating the limo's location at the time of the head shot. Yarborough independently reads Golz article and contacts Golz telling him that he saw the man mentioned in Earl's article. Yarborough in his TV interview says that he knew that this individual had had his training on what to do when in the line of fire.

So please explain yourself in detail if you will.

Bill

do my best Bill...

Let's start with Yarborough:

As noted previously, Arnold’s story was first publicized in a Dallas Morning News story of August 27, 1978. A follow-up story of Sunday, December 31, 1978, again authored by Earl Golz, noted, “Some assassination researchers said they doubted Arnold’s story because they could not find him in photographs and movie film taken at the time of the assassination.”

64 Earl Golz, “Panel Leaves Question of Impostors,” Dallas Morning News, December 31, 1978.

However, Golz wrote, Arnold’s “presence on the grassy knoll was confirmed Saturday by former U.S. Sen. Ralph Yarborough of Texas, who was riding in the motorcade two cars behind the presidential limousine. He was a passenger in a car with Vice President Lyndon Johnson and Mrs. Johnson.” 65 Earl Golz, “Panel Leaves Question of Impostors,” Dallas Morning News, December 31, 1978.

“Immediately on the firing of the first shot I saw the man you interviewed throw himself on the ground,” Yarborough told The News. “He was down within a second of the time the shot was fired and I thought to myself, ‘There’s a combat veteran who knows how to act when weapons start firing.’” 66 Earl Golz, “Panel Leaves Question of Impostors,” Dallas Morning News, December 31, 1978.

In his affidavit submitted to the Warren Commission, Yarborough stated, “I heard three shots and no more. All seemed to come from my right rear. I saw people fall to the ground on the embankment to our right, at about the time of or after the second shot, but before the cavalcade started up and raced away.” (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VII, p. 440.)

Yarborough elaborated slightly upon his statement ten years later, in The Men Who Killed Kennedy:

During that shooting my eye was attracted to the right. I saw a movement and I saw a man just jump about ten feet like at the old time flying tackle in football and land against a wall. I thought to myself, “There’s an infantryman who’s either been shot at in combat or he’s been trained thoroughly: the minute you hear firing, get under cover.”

Yarborough saw someone “jump about ten feet like at the old time flying tackle in football and land against a wall;” Gordon Arnold said he “hit the dirt” behind the concrete wall. 67 Earl Golz, “SS ‘imposters’ spotted by JFK witnesses,” Dallas Morning News, August 27, 1978.

Gordon Arnold said he was in uniform that day; 68 Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt (New York: Henry Holt and Co., First Owl Book Edition, 1987), pp. 112-13.

Yarborough surmised that the bystander he saw was an infantryman or combat veteran, because he appeared to know “how to act when weapons start firing.”

Was Yarborough describing Gordon Arnold, or someone else entirely?

In 1993 Ralph W. Yarborough was interviewed at his Austin home by historian David Murph of Texas Christian University. Murph reminded Yarborough that he had been quoted as saying he had witnessed a man on the grassy knoll throw himself down on the ground, and that the man had impressed him as a combat veteran.

Yarborough seemed puzzled to hear that his words had been applied to someone standing on the grassy knoll. That couldn’t possibly be correct, he insisted repeatedly. “Remember where I was in the motorcade — with the Johnsons,” he cautioned Murph, “too far back to have been able to see anyone [on the knoll] drop to the ground when firing began.”

69 David Murph, e-mails to author, July 8 and 10, 2003. Thanks to David Perry for putting me in contact with Dr. Murph.

Whoever Yarborough had described (and there were many people in Dealey Plaza throwing themselves down on the ground as the shots rang out), 70 Journalist Hugh Sidey was a passenger in the motorcade. When the vehicle he was in turned the corner to Elm Street, he would recall, “It looked like a giant hand or wind had swept the place, everybody was lying down on the grassy knoll. At the curb there was a young man [probably a reference to eyewitness Bill Newman] with a little boy. He was hammering the ground with his fist, with his other arm over the boy protecting him, just in anguish.” (The Newseum with Cathy Trost and Susan Bennett, President Kennedy Has Been Shot [Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks, Inc., 2003], p. 25.)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold2.htm

Not exactly an unimpeachable source our Senator....

Now the 2 photographic sources: Nix and Moorman.

Neither one can be said to identify GA only that the film suggests something moved in the manner GA described moving after the first shot, not after the head shot. You say the Groden Nix presentation was plain as day... you could tell he had on light clothes, a hat, and a camera in his hand? Is there not one single frame that can be shown to support this claim or are we simply inferring from GA's account that what we see in Nix is him?

Moorman. We can debate the existence of BM, GA and Hatman in Moorman all day and still not get anywhere. Whether the size analysis is correct or not, why there are white sunlight spots intermixed in the shadows on the FRONTS of these men standing in th shadows and resolution issues. But to definitely say that GA is in the photo given the discrepencies, I think, is a stretch.

add Bowers, Hoffman and Holland's recollection and we have even more conflicts with GA's story. We know for a fact that these three were there.

However, Bowers’s description of the men is at odds with the Mack/White interpretation of the images in Moorman. Neither man described by Bowers wore a police uniform, for example; Bowers said “there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.”

2 Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 287.

“Were they standing together or standing separately?” Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball asked him. “They were standing within ten or fifteen feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew,” Bowers replied.

3 Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 287. Another witness brought forward in The Men Who Killed Kennedy to corroborate Gordon Arnold’s story is Ed Hoffman, who tells an extraordinary story of witnessing Kennedy murdered by a rifleman and a backup stationed behind the picket fence. Neither of the individuals described by Hoffman wore a police uniform, however; and, in truth, Hoffman’s story has changed so many times over the years that his credibility problems rival or even surpass those of Gordon Arnold.

After the shooting, Bowers observed, at least one, possibly both of the men remained in the area as police and bystanders began flooding into the parking lot. 4 Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 288.

These two men were the only strangers Bowers noticed in the area.

5 Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 288.

If his testimony is to be believed, he did not see a man fitting Gordon Arnold’s description walk toward the railroad bridge; he did not see anyone fitting the description of a plainclothes officer or agent in a suit; he did not witness a confrontation between two such individuals; he did not see a man fitting Arnold’s description walk back along the fence; he did not witness a second confrontation between the two individuals, in the same approximate area as the two men Bowers did describe; he did not see a police officer behind the fence prior to or immediately after the shooting; he did not see a man wearing a hardhat (a la Mack and White) standing behind the fence; he did not see anyone fire a gun; he did not see a weapon of any kind; and he saw no one flee the area. He simply heard three shots and could not tell which direction they came from.

Hopefully the detail is there for you Bill... when you quote GA "he says the President got to 'this position' that he is demonstrating the limo's location at the time of the head shot" please provide a source... from my readings, his story, like Ed Hoffman's, grows and changes over the years. what he said in '78 is not the same as in '82, 85 or '88. I get the distinct impression that Altgens at z255 gives us a much better idea of where Yarborough was and when the first shot from the front was fired... That an assassin would continue to fire from such close range AFTER blowing his head off seems a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Todd!!!

From the Milwaukee Journal 11-23-63.

chris

Jackson.png

Thanks Chris.

That's going to be the Chism's, who were standing near the Stemmons sign and ran up the knoll a bit to take cover. They then picked up their son and ran down the knoll onto the sidewalk and towards the underpass, as seen in Bothun, Rickerby, Grant, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

I know you've said that BDM is the same figure in Moorman's Polaroid , I just can't believe it, given that no human is visible behind the wall in Mooreman.

Todd

l_8421b92988ed48bb8eafea5203e68409.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that the 1st shot occurred between Betzner 3 (Z-186) and Willis 5 (Z202

Then we might as well be discussing religion if we are merely dealing with 'belief'. I am talking about the evidence. One man states he takes a photo and then a 1st shot is fired ... another man hears that shot and takes a photo ... its a no brainer in my view. But then there is also what Woodward said as to when that first shot was heard and what she saw the President do in reaction to it. That is evidence and what I must follow. Personally, I want to believe that the assassination never happened, but that won't change the reality of it.

I've seen the Groden Nix work in his videos. You can't make out any real human features. There is motion of something moving in an arc like fashion from right to left and from high to low. As I said before, it could easily be an arm moving. But like I said, to definitely say as you do that it's a "lone individual…going to the ground" is nowhere near certain, and is nothing but speculation.

There was a reason that we went to the lab to have his 35mm print enhanced. I believe that Groden said to us that he has never published that print. I can say that it was better then any video print Groden had presented before ... I wish you could have been there.

And for those who post the poorest Moorman images and ask 'Who can say they see a human shape over the wall' ... I can only suggest looking at the far better print that White and Mack used. Once them have done so, then compare that to what has been said about the Nix film and there should be little doubt that someone was on the knoll and for me it looks very much like a man in uniform.

Bill

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...