Question For Josiah : Hatman 3 and a bit years later

[Guest Duncan MacRae]

I say 3 and a bit years later because the clip in question was obviously recorded before June 1967 and I have no idea of the time it took to get the production together before going on the air. Anyway...To the point.

I just noticed this while watching a clip of Zapruder being interviewed in A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" June, 1967.

This object which I have highlighted is in the exact same position as the alleged Hatman seen in Moorman 1963 at approximately 12ft from the corner of the fence. The only difference between the two images are the perspectives, ie, one shows "Hatman" to the right of the tree, and the other shows "Hatman" to the left of the tree. This makes absolutely no difference to the study as both objects are at the 12ft mark

Question for Josiah. .

What year was it when you went to the knoll and noticed that the Hatman figure seen in Moorman was no longer there?

You can view the clip here Click here to view Zapruder and the Hatman area in 1967

Duncan

Edited April 8, 2008 by Duncan MacRae

[Alan Healy]

I've got several issues with this.

I'll start with the easiest.

Your missing signals on the overhead view.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...SignalTower.jpg

Next,

from the SSID Thompson photos you posted above, there is curiously one missing.

It's the one that shows the tower but not Holland(bottom right).

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...MooreSSIDM5.jpg

The reason it shows Holland in position & not the shape of the signal tower is because the camera was too low.

Not all those Thompson photos were taken on the same day.

First Thompson got Holland to stand where he thought the shots came from & then at some later date he went back &(or after he) discovered the signal tower(that's my educated guess!).

The height of the Holland positional photo wasn't that important,(hence the lack of signals) but the height of the signal tower photo was essential & he appears to have got it very close to Moorman because we can see the wall in that photo & it's within an inch or two.

Another thing.

Gary says there is a shape in the CBS footage that seems to be in the(IMO mislabled) "Hatman" position.

Are you sure you two are talking about the same thing Duncan?

Because if Gary feels that what he is referring to could be the signal tower, then it is obvious to me he is talking about something to the right(east) of the tree in that '67 footage, not what you highlighted west of it.

You said in your opening post that the object we are seeing left(west) of the tree is 12' from the corner, I'm curious to know how you could work this out & be so confident about your conclusion to encourage others to just take your word for it?

BTW, Thompson measured it on-site @14' but that is not my point.

I personally think the Hollandman position is behind the tree in the CBS footage, but I'm just eyeballin' it.

Finally,

neither Josiah, Gary or I believe what you are looking at "on" the fence in Moorman is just a hat.

We believe it's a most likely a man with both his shoulders well above the fence.

The hat shape is just an illusion.

So I would suggest calling it "Holland's man"(or something) when trying to glean a response from the man who first spotted it.

The "hat" shape is totaly confusing laypeople too.

There is no way a hat at the fence would be that well defined in Moorman, with that kind of definition we would see every "V" in every slat of the fence.

It is clearly something else.

Hatman is a crock..... dude, it's "Hollandman".

[Ed O'Hagan]

I found this picture in an old folder which I had worked on several years ago. It's listed as 'Fedora'. If I am recalling correctly the 'fedora' turned out to be:

Edited April 14, 2008 by Ed O'Hagan

[Miles Scull]

I found this picture in an old folder which I had worked on several years ago. It's listed as 'Fedora'. If I am recalling correctly the 'fedora' turned out to be:

Duncan, Alan,

IF, IF this is a man, he cannot be a shooter!

Why not?

Because his view of the approaching, moving target is blocked, if he places his rifle barrel, as he must do, between the fence slats as BM said that he would do were he Shorty.

See:

[Alan Healy]

It was missing, as I didn't have a copy at the time. Here's a better quality version for you to look at.

I don't need it I have the book.

I believe that is correct

Good

Possibly

It's a fact, there is more growth on the trees in the signal photo if you look closely, thus the signal photo was taken on another date.

He is referring to what he calls an object in the distance, ie, the highlighted object in the first post. He has told me that he does not know what the object is.

Quote from Gary with acknowledged corrected year, ie 1963 for 1966

The 1963 and 1967 shapes, IMO, are two completely different objects.

Gary

Okay, I think I got it the wrong way around somehow nevermind, I read it again.

Gary thinks he sees the signals in the '67 footage as well.

There was no conclusion, only a topic put forward for debate. I worked it out by comparing other objects in Moorman, You don't need to be Einstein to calculate the distance.

You said & I quote;

This object which I have highlighted is in the exact same position as the alleged Hatman seen in Moorman 1963 at approximately 12ft from the corner of the fence. The only difference between the two images are the perspectives, ie, one shows "Hatman" to the right of the tree, and the other shows "Hatman" to the left of the tree. This makes absolutely no difference to the study as both objects are at the 12ft mark

That is a conclusion, you never asked for confirmation from anyone & I still don't know how you worked it out so I'll try again.

Exactly what objects are you talking about?

I still feel that the 14' mark(Hollandman) is hidden behind the tree in the '67 footage.

To be confirmed

Maybe someone can post the measurment in print from "SSID" for you, would that suffice?

To be confirmed

Obviously.

What you suggest I call it doesn't concern me, and yes i'm posting to try to get responses. Isn't that the whole logic behind posting on a Forum?

It's not the whole idea no.

Not everyone thinks like you.

The shape is exactly that, an unidentifiable shape which is confusing to not only lay people with a passing interest, but also to everyone else. If it wasn't confusing, we would not be discussing it here and elsewhere

It's not a hat, that is obvious.

It all depends on the enhancement method used on a particular and specific area of a phjotograph. You should know that by now Alan.

Incorrect, it starts with the quality of the original photo & this one was clearly not good enough to outline a fedora hat that well from that distance.

It is clearly something else.

It's not clearly something else, it's clearly unidentifiable

Incorrect.

Someone later identified it as a hat, others then picked up on it & now they can't get past it.

So they have ID'd it, although incorrectly.

It's not a hat, that IS clear.

Why don't we call it " Healyhasn'tatacluewhatitisman"

Or AHman for short?

Less obvious, work it out.

The bottom line here IMO, is that you found an object in that misalined '67 footage that is almost five times the size of the "hat".

What I want to know from you Duncan is whether you think there's a chance Josiah decieved us with his photo taken from the correct position & height that shows nothing or maybe even innocently missed this huge dome(whatever it is..).

FYI there are no dates in "SSID" for these photos but the 14' measurement is on the same page as them.

[Alan Healy]

IF, IF this is a man, he cannot be a shooter!

Why not?

Because his view of the approaching, moving target is blocked, if he places his rifle barrel, as he must do, between the fence slats as BM said that he would do were he Shorty.

Hi Miles,

It's not a man's hat, it is most likely his left shoulder IMHO & his face is well above the fence.

Your convinced it's a hat & I strongly believe you're wrong.

The "SSID" crop of M5 that started this has been worked on to bring out the shape at the fence but in doing so, has accidently produced this fedora style detail.

Don't kid yourself it's trustworthy.

This is like the third or fourth time you have made this response to me about "shorty", I'm telling you your mistaken & for the last time, I don't believe it's a GD hat!

I believe you are correct about placing a rifle between the slats however.

That was a great point you made before.

It's not something this situation would warrant.

At least not from a professional.

He can be a shooter, you just have to get past the misleading "hat" shape.

Regards.

[Alan Healy]

And the significance of this wonderous horticultural analysis ?

Read back to this how this petty exchange started to find the significance.

It was a visual analysis, not a conclusion

Incorrect & you still haven't produced details of how you come to the 12' mark, which Thompson measured @14'.

Is it a condition of membership that I need to ask forum members?

No but it is usual when someone puts something out for "discussion", which is what you said was your intention.

Wow..How can you comment on anything, when you don't even understand the objects concerned as clearly illustrated in the opening post

One more try.

How did you come to the 12' conclusion stated as fact in the OP?

I have a better reference source than the book

Yet your still looking for "confirmation" of Thompon's 14' measurement?

You can't say that Alan, well you can actually, but it's an uneducated statement if you ask me, as it's not obvious that it is not a hat or that it is a hat

It's obvious when you know that the original M5 photo would not illustrate such detail from that distance.

It's clear to you, but no one else

Who "else"?

Too easy Alan , It's obviously the initials of your first and second names which just happens to be the same first and second letters of an insulting term which I can't say because of the forum rules. You work that out

I did before I wrote it , you got it in two & that's what I think of your humour.

Stupid question

Childish answer.

[Bill Miller]

IF, IF this is a man, he cannot be a shooter!

Why not?

Because his view of the approaching, moving target is blocked, if he places his rifle barrel, as he must do, between the fence slats as BM said that he would do were he Shorty.

Miles, If Hat Man didn't shoot, then who else caused the shot to be heard from that location and the smoke to be seen drifting out from under the trees?

I might add that the latter photo is a joke because there are no smaller trees between Hat Man in Moorman and the president, thus your photo angle is misleading, which is not unexpected IMO.

So if we have your past conclusions all added up ... Bowers didn't see anyone directly out in front of him - meaning he didn't see Hat Man ... he didn't see the alleged real shooter who caused the smoke - he didn't see the alleged Duncan floating cop torso, but he somehow could see plaid designs on peoples clothing from 300 feet away. Now don't you feel silly yet?

Edited April 18, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

IF, IF this is a man, he cannot be a shooter!

Why not?

Because his view of the approaching, moving target is blocked, if he places his rifle barrel, as he must do, between the fence slats as BM said that he would do were he Shorty.

Miles, If Hat Man didn't shoot, then who else caused the shot to be heard from that location and the smoke to be seen drifting out from under the trees?

I might add that the latter photo is a joke because there are no smaller trees between Hat Man in Moorman and the president, thus your photo angle is misleading, which is not unexpected IMO.

So if we have your past conclusions all added up ... Bowers didn't see anyone directly out in front of him - meaning he didn't see Hat Man ... he didn't see the alleged real shooter who caused the smoke - he didn't see the alleged Duncan floating cop torso, but he somehow could see plaid designs on peoples clothing from 300 feet away. Now don't you feel silly yet?

Hi Gary....

[Bill Miller]

Hi Gary....

I would like to point out just how stupid your reply was, but you beat me to it. So what am I supposed to say ... 'Hi Jack?'

[Alan Healy]

I tried my best to get you to give details of how you arrived at your 12' foot measurment but you gave me nothing.

"I don't have to be a genius to work out why".

It's obvious when you know that the original M5 photo would not illustrate such detail from that distance.

I don't know that...You don't know that...Only those who have viewed and studied it in it's original condition can give an accurate description of the detail contained in the original image.

I should of said in the "SSID print" not in the "original photo" because that's the only record of this "M" shape that has been mistaken for a hat.

I know THAT print could not pick up this kind of detail on a hat atop Hudson's head or the man next to him just by looking at it, half of the men's heads on the steps are gone, so it's obvious to me it's not a hat at the fence.

It's obvious it's something else & part of that is most likely missing too.

Despite that, I still dissagree with what you said above.

We don't need the original to know the resolving power of Moorman's camera set up & neither would we rely on the memory of those who saw the original photo to tell us what it showed.

It's all your insinuation deserved

It was just another question but I can let it go.

Btw,

I just wanted to make clear the height difference between Mary's camera & the '67 footage for anyone else that cares less & also, I was wondering Duncan, if you looked at any photos actually facing west for your "missing object"?

The two you posted on the first page where not actually looking in the same direction as Moorman or the CBS camera for some reason.

I found something in the very first westward facing one I came across.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...man/AHMan67.jpg

Done & dusted.

[Bill Miller]

he didn't see the alleged Duncan floating cop torso

Bill Miller

Maybe he did see him

Duncan MacRae

OK Duncan .. you have my curiosity going ... Bowers described seeing two men ... did either of his descriptions fit someone in a police uniform and wearing a hat near the fence at that location ... I have not seen where Lee made any such reference.

Edited April 26, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

OK Duncan .. you have my curiosity going ... Bowers described seeing two men ... did either of his descriptions fit someone in a police uniform and wearing a hat near the fence at that location ... I have not seen where Lee made any such reference.

Bill

Ok Bill, I'll quench your thirst for knowledge and understanding

Bowers did not get a good look at one of the men, as can be determined by part of his testimony shown below.

I'll make the key words in bold type so that you can try and see things from my point of view, without you actually accepting that the 33ft shooter is real.

The crux of it all, as seen in the testimony extract below, is that Bowers did not have a pinpoint location for either of the two men, nor could he give a clear description of the dark dressed man.

Mr. Bowers.

He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.

Mr. Ball.

Were the two men there at the time?

Mr. Bowers.

I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say.

The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees.

Duncan

Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?

Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say.

The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.

Duncan,

Yes, yes indeed. I was wondering when someone would mention this.

One of the men was possibly missing & unaccounted for!

Where might this wraith have listed?

Back around to 33 feet where Bowers missed him?

He was too big to have been or to have become Shorty.

Edit: spelling

Edited April 28, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Ok Bill, I'll quench your thirst for knowledge and understanding

Bowers did not get a good look at one of the men, as can be determined by part of his testimony shown below.

I'll make the key words in bold type so that you can try and see things from my point of view, without you actually accepting that the 33ft shooter is real.

The crux of it all, as seen in the testimony extract below, is that Bowers did not have a pinpoint location for either of the two men, nor could he give a clear description of the dark dressed man.

Mr. Bowers.

He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.

Mr. Ball.

Were the two men there at the time?

Mr. Bowers.

I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say.

The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees.

Duncan

Duncan, is there any reason why you didn't mention that earlier in Bowers testimony ... he had described the two men this way ... "One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket." Now that we have ALLOWED in a little more of Lee Bowers testimony (that you managed to overlook) ... which description would you like to turn into a cop - the man in the white shirt and trousers or the man in the plaid shirt or jacket???

[Bill Miller]

If Bowers by his own admission could not identify him, it could have been anyone or anything, including the 33ft shooter, Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster In other words, Bowers could have seen the 33ft shooter, but failed to recognise him for the reasons typed in bold above. That's a plain and simple fact.

I often wonder what serious researchers around the world think when they see such idiocy coming out of a response like the one cited above. And while you (Duncan) may know someone's testimony frontwards and backwards ... it doesn't mean that you actually understood it. Even a parrot can be trained to site a verse, but it hasn't a clue as to what it is saying.

If one goes back and reads what transpired between Ball and Bowers ... Bowers described two men who were standing up near the fence and watching the motorcade as it entered the Plaza. During the shooting, Bowers wasn't looking at these men any longer, but was rather looking at the colonnade/monument and thats how he was able to recollect where the President's car was during the actual shooting.

Mr. BALL - When you heard the sound, which way were you looking?

Mr. BOWERS - At the moment I heard the sound, I was looking directly towards the area---at the moment of the first shot, as close as my recollection serves, the car was out of sight behind this decorative masonry wall in the area.

Mr. BALL - And when you heard the second and third shot, could you see the car?

Mr. BOWERS - No; at the moment of the shots, I could---I do not think that it was in sight. It came in sight immediately following the last shot.

Then Ball asked where these men were ... and Bowers said that one of them was still at the same general location he had seen him before, while the other man had disappeared. Lee inferred that he didn't see that man ... that he must have been too hard to see against the background. So regardless of when he saw them ... Bowers described them to Ball earlier in his testimony as to what each was wearing. So once again ... how did Bowers description of these two men get you to thinking that one was a cop in a hat???

Mr. BALL - Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?

Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.

Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?

Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say.

The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.

If you pay close attention ... you will see that the man in the white shirt was still visible to Bowers and it was the plaid coated man that he is inferring to being too hard to see where he had gone off to. If I have missed something, then by all means - correct me.

Edited April 27, 2008 by Bill Miller