Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Holland Shooter


Guest Duncan MacRae

Recommended Posts

Bill: " the camera and film that Zapruder used did not and could not have captured any part of a bullet in flight, nor any trails it may have created while in flight."

Again : "could not have captured any part of a bullet in flight" it depends on whether the bullet travels towards, away, or across the fov.

Nothing you say changes the fact that the bullet creates compression and depcompression in a shape and structure well ducumented. This does not travel at the speed of the bullet. As it travels through a mist of fine droplets through which light shines and light that is reflected through it off a back ground surface (in this case of the opposite spectrum (red-green)) it alters the direction and frequency of the photon wave forms. These photons. like any other photons striking the emulsion of the film surface causes a reaction. There is no magical filter that differentiates between all these different photons and says to the emulsion, 'hang on, this one comes from that particular effect and therefore please don't react to it.' Sorry, Bill, but that's just how it is.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don has been aware of my findings for some time, but has never expressed an opinion other than this on Lancer in 2003. I think he's pretty thorough in his analysis and conclusions.

Duncan,

This is a capture from Don's website ( http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/ ):

"Link: My professionally surveyed Dealey Plaza 11-22-63 map detailing victims precise locations, witnesses, evidence, suspected bullet trajectories, important information, & 4 additional diagrams for your considerations"

Can you view & expand or blow up Don's map? If so, you will see a scale rule where one pixel = 4.29".

Does this indicate to you extreme accuracy as to scale? Or not? :blink:

Miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill: " the camera and film that Zapruder used did not and could not have captured any part of a bullet in flight, nor any trails it may have created while in flight."

Again : "could not have captured any part of a bullet in flight" it depends on whether the bullet travels towards, away, or across the fov.

Nothing you say changes the fact that the bullet creates compression and depcompression in a shape and structure well ducumented. This does not travel at the speed of the bullet. As it travels through a mist of fine droplets through which light shines and light that is reflected through it off a back ground surface (in this case of the opposite spectrum (red-green)) it alters the direction and frequency of the photon wave forms. These photons. like any other photons striking the emulsion of the film surface causes a reaction. There is no magical filter that differentiates between all these different photons and says to the emulsion, 'hang on, this one comes from that particular effect and therefore please don't react to it.' Sorry, Bill, but that's just how it is.

Even if we were able to detect that of which you speak, the bullet would have to be within the field of view of the photograph in order to do so (or perhaps be just outside the fov). There is no guarantee that this would be the case. For example, a while back on Lancer, I showed that if Z313 is the precise moment of impact (and we now know that it probably isn't), the bullet would not be within the FOV in Z312 due to the distance traveled and the velocities involved.

However, other films (for example) have a wider fov per frame and may warrant further study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris, for the animation.

Duncan

Glad to do it.

The previous animation showed the white hat is the shape of a police hat. imo

Here's one that might be a little more definitive.

Duncan, I believe there are 3 people in your hatman area.

1. He is standing behind the shooter #2. His face is partially obscurred by the rifle. But look at his suit and tie just above the wall.

2. The shooter. Sighting through rifle. His face partially obscurs #1.

3. White hatman. Not sure if he is a shooter or a cop cover for the shooter.

4. The rifle appears to be military. Short gunbutt. Flip-up sight. Reminds me of an assault style rifle. I don't know squat about guns, but that would be my best analogy.

chris

P.S.

Added enlarged and more darkened version for viewing. If too bug, stand back from computer 5-10 ft.

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Even if we were able to detect "

I gather from this that you are understanding what I'm saying.

One last time.

we are talking about a bullet.

we are talking about a trace left by the passage of the bullet.

if the bullet was travelling directly towards the film surface it certainly would leave a trace, not unlike a 'hole'. If it was travelling directly away from the film surface, the film surface would , during exposure, be hit by photons which would travel at the speed of light back towards the film surface. the other extreme is when it travels directly across the field of view. This is probably what people who are having difficulties with this are meaning when they the bullet CANNOT be seen. Either way whatever the field of view, whatever the direction the bullet travels, photons are not taking the day off and do srtrike the bullet and those photons travel at the speed of light. These photons strike the film surface.

The trace of the bullet is another matter that also involve photons travelling at the speed of light during the time that the film surface is uncovered by the shutter. Again, they strike the film surface and affect the emulsion. FOV has nothing to do with this photon behaviour.

What does have a lot to do with it is the medium the bullet travels through, be it vaccuuum, air, air-bloodmist, a head or a brick wall. Each of these affect the bullet and the well documented twisted conical volume of medium or material at various densities caused by the passage of the bullet. This twirly conical volume of media affects the passage of photons through it.

These photons irrespective of wide or not FOV will hit the film surface (if travelling in that direction) and react with the emulsion to no lesser or greater degree than any other photon.

The conical shape of media (in this case air and an airbloodmist mixture) continues travelling/expandisng/dissipating well below the speed of the bullet (even though it's created at the rate of the bullets passage through the media.) The affect on the photons passing through this media of varying densities, when those photons travel to the film surface during exposeure leaves no more or less an impression.

Perhaps its differentiation of these photons from a lot off other photons most likely in higher saturation you are talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris, for the animation.

Duncan

Glad to do it.

The previous animation showed the white hat is the shape of a police hat. imo

Here's one that might be a little more definitive.

Duncan, I believe there are 3 people in your hatman area.

1. He is standing behind the shooter #2. His face is partially obscurred by the rifle. But look at his suit and tie just above the wall.

2. The shooter. Sighting through rifle. His face partially obscurs #1.

3. White hatman. Not sure if he is a shooter or a cop cover for the shooter.

4. The rifle appears to be military. Short gunbutt. Flip-up sight. Reminds me of an assault style rifle. I don't know squat about guns, but that would be my best analogy.

chris

P.S.

Added enlarged and more darkened version for viewing. If too bug, stand back from computer 5-10 ft.

chris,

PDGAS! (pretty damn good amazing stuff)

1. Does the alignment of the rifle = a true trajectory for Z-313?

2. Will you allow that the flip-up sight may be the rear end of a small scope?

3. WOW!

Miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Duncan:

A few thoughts, nothing in stone, as usual.

You mention that Don stated this shooter was close to the Files spot..words to that effect...

Files states that he was only 8 to 10 feet from the corner of the fence, seen closest to the steps..

Sam Holland in the Mark Lane clip.....and some of the men with him on the overpass mention the area was 20 to 30 feet towards

them on the overpass. Not towards the corner and steps closer to the

Zapruder pedestal...

The many footprints found in the mud, behind the fence and the mud seen scraped off the bumpers of the cars.

As seen below, were a distance up towards the overpass ,from the closest corner to Zapruder..

Each car is approximately 5 feet wide, each car parked, has a two feet approx distance on each side, to enable the driver

and passenger to get out of said car.....

As is seen on Sam Hollands map......approximately a 2 feet distance between the corner fence and the first car, then

the 2 feet opening on the far side to be able for the passenger to get out....etc.

Now the map shows 4 cars......The muddy footprints, he has drawn between the 2nd and 3rd car....or someone has...therefore the

mathematics would be........

2 feet from fence....5 foot wide car...2 feet on the other side also...

Times 3 equals approximately 16 feet........Now Sam does say in his film with Mark Lane the footprints were in front of the 3rd car

but on the map they are seen drawn mainy in front of the 2nd and 3nd car......who knows where he stood after walking back

and forth so many times, to finally take a shot, it's hard to decide with a positive....given several feet between each way..

The Nix below which is a more direct view shows the tree and the hatman....is this the same man that you are viewing,

or is this a different shooter, spotter whatever.....

Another from Skaggs show a more front view, seen after.....

Now note, the sign and the light pole.......As seen in the Lane video, when they walk around the fence to the spot....

Where they saw the smoke drift out from under the trees, the sign is closer on their right, and he states JFK was hit

just as the limo got to this side, the left of the lamp post.......see photo also.....

You have the ability to catch a frame from films, as you have so kindly done in the past.....

When you find the time, or anyone who is able to...perhaps if you catch the frame from where Sam and Mark Lane

are standing behind the fence, you will be able to catch the spot in front of the sign, and the lamp post as shown..

I am thinking the distance where the shot took place from,

was much closer to the overpass as the R.R men stated..

The Allen photo taken after,shows more of a perspective re the distance from the step fence corner, to the lamp

post,and appears more than 8 to 10 feet...imo..

As I said just some thoughts... :blink:

Confusion reigns...

B..

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this study seems to coincide for the (Holland) shooter location.

http://www.jfklancer.com/nix-needham.html

Yes it does Miles. Rick Needham and I agreed at the time that both his location and my location were and are the same. Rick since then, and as far as I know, has changed his stance in claiming ( along with Bill Miller ) that the Nix figure is actually at the left of the tree as we view it, and that the Nix perspective is misleading and can not be compared with my Moorman shooter location perspective. Rick seems to have vanished from the face of the Earth, so I don'tknow what his view is at this moment in time is. My view is that Bill and Rick are profoundly wrong in their perspective analysis.

Duncan

Ducan,

Thanks for this explanation. Of course, you have seen the Roberbeau map. If you blow this map up for detail a lot of different photo perspective is referable. It would be really great if someone could plot the points of locus for each theoretically placed shooter as photographically claimed by Bill, Rick, Jack, Chris or anybody else with reference to the Roberbeau map. What are the trajectories? For example, a direct line of sight down the plane of the picket fence intersects Umbrella man. Would a shooter allow the tree trunk to pass by in front of & through his field of fire. Possibly so, if he anticipated same. Any thoughts?

Miles

....Good Day Miles.... The following theoretical trajectories were provided on the Dealey Plaza professionally surveyed map some years ago....

http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/DPth...RAJECTORIES.gif

....and....

http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/DPth...TORIESviews.gif

....On the maps, the image seen in MOORMAN #5 (red-labeled "GKS", physically west of the tree, but MOORMAN #5 photographically-seen slightly right of the tree, that corresponds to Zf-315-316) is on a line-of-sight that intersects nearly the exact same location where the HSCA determined an assassin fired from, and, where photographic evidences captured seconds after MOORMAN #5 do not show an image in that exact same location.

An aside.... I have rarely said much about JAMES FILES claims, having personally discarded his claims years ago after many private discussions with researchers.... A few years back there were some paintings, reportedly, done by FILES (I think being ebay auctioned), and one of the paintings showed the picket fence top, Elm Street, the "Thornton" sign at a very steep oblique angle, a lamp post, etc, that I used to photogrammatically calculate the location spot the painting was depicted from---which, IIRC, calculated to many yards west of the HSCA-determined, MOORMAN #5-seen, "GKS" assassin's location.... Still have that FILES painting calculating the perspective location if anyone is interested---it use to be in, and may still be within, my AOL small public JFK file that the DP maps are also within.... http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK

Best Regards in Research,

Don

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

ROSEMARY WILLIS 2nd Headsnap; Westward, Ultrafast, & Towards the "Grassy Knoll"

Dealey Plaza Professionally-surveyed Map Detailing Victims locations, Witnesses, Photographers, Suspected trajectories, Evidentiary artifacts, etc

4 Principles

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

TEAMWORK.gif

DHS3elevatedYELLOW.gif

"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more."

---- President JOHN F. KENNEDY, 20JAN61 inaugural address

Edited by Don Roberdeau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello All

I realize that this WILL seem to be a ridiculous question by many, but due to my lack of experience and understanding of photo interpretation, I would appreciate a reply if even my question is considered a fantasy.

If there were NO Zilm as a refernce or timing point that could be considered, how would it effect your interpretation of the two shooting positions from what these depictions seem to imply ? Could there have been two simultaneous shots considered as if two shooters were firing on direct command ?

I am not attempting to divert this thread into another discussion of Z film authenticity, and I wont. But my question is serious and can be answered regardless of your individual interpretations of the Z film timing and authenticity.

As a result of "these" images which seem to me to portray two differet shooters, would the "absence" of the Z film contribute in one way or another to your conclusions.

Please excuse my genuine lack of filming knowledge,and this may certainly be an ignorant question arising from that; but this IS a sincere question and not an attempt on my part to introduce or promote contradiction !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree here with you Bill as I have done over the last 5 years or so. If you look at the Mark Lane clip with Holland, you can clearly see that he is in the location of my shooter. This is not a perspective error.

Duncan, I have been in Dealey Plaza with Mark Lane and I know exactly where Holland took him. I have also gone over this in great detail with Ed Hoffman and I know exactly where Hoffman places the man at the fence. Rick Needham showed a gif years ago where it appeared to have someone's head seen over the top of the fence in the Nix film. That location is also the same one I have been talking about. Thed area where you claim to see a torso in the Moorman photo has no one in it in the Nix film. All I can tell you is that what ever it is that you think you see in the Lane clip is an illusion whereas you have misjudged the distance from the corner of the fence to the shooter location.

Just look at the Mark Lane clip at the heads of Lane and Hoffman. There is little difference in the head size in comparison to the shooter. As you may remember, or not, Rick Janowitz at my request, kindly took some photographs for me of him standing in this location from the Moorman perspective, and the results clearly showed that the shooter was not too large. Rick I believe is 5ft 11

Duncan

The rules of perspective are solid. I have not seen a capture of the heads you are talking about concerning Lane and Holland, but to validate your observation, then you must show a view of them from the Moorman location and be sure to scale the magnification of the knoll to match that of Moorman's photo so to know how the heads relate in size to what you think you see in Mary's Polaroid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill: " the camera and film that Zapruder used did not and could not have captured any part of a bullet in flight, nor any trails it may have created while in flight."

Again : "could not have captured any part of a bullet in flight" it depends on whether the bullet travels towards, away, or across the fov.

Nothing you say changes the fact that the bullet creates compression and depcompression in a shape and structure well ducumented. This does not travel at the speed of the bullet. As it travels through a mist of fine droplets through which light shines and light that is reflected through it off a back ground surface (in this case of the opposite spectrum (red-green)) it alters the direction and frequency of the photon wave forms. These photons. like any other photons striking the emulsion of the film surface causes a reaction. There is no magical filter that differentiates between all these different photons and says to the emulsion, 'hang on, this one comes from that particular effect and therefore please don't react to it.' Sorry, Bill, but that's just how it is.

John - there were numerous shots being fired at the limo ... show me where their shock wave or any other sign of them in flight is seen on any assassination film? It's nonsense to expect the assasination films to offer such detail on this matter.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thx, Bill,

On expanding the map, I found a scale rule (by feet) on Don's map & noticed that it purports to be a professional survey map, professionally surveyed. Is this, then, not so? :blink:

Of course, an overhead photo would be best, but is there one?

I think that Don's map is accurate.

I am going from memory here, but the concrete wall above the knoll comes to mind. look at the length that the map says it is and compare that to the same wall leading to the Zapruder pedestal. Then compare the two lines and see if they are accurate in ratio to the numerical distances attributed to them. I distinctly recall posting about them a few years ago and it is possible that Don corrected them, but if the map is unchanged, then they are still there.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bernice, yes it's the same position as in the Nix frame which you uploaded, which Rick Needham agreed on before much later doing an unexpected 360 degrees about turn to agree with Bills hypothesis. I'm not at home at the moment, so I can't capture the Mark Lane frame which shows Holland at his spot. Maybe Chris could do this and do an analysis of the locations to tie them up or not, and if not, i'll do it on Friday... Chris?

Duncan

Duncan,

From Holland's interview with Lane.

I'll leave the analysis to you.

What Bernice supplied previously appears to be very accurate in terms of distance. imo

I believe there are 3 men in the position you have described. (Moorman Photo Enhanced)

At this point, I assume he is just one of the shooters along that fence.

Did he take the headshot? Don't know, but at the least, he's prepared to shoot.

By the way, the aspect ratio on what I have supplied has not been changed.

I believe the animation clearly shows it's a cop's hat.

Or is it another coincidence that the hat shapes match quite nicely.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill: "John - there were numerous shots being fired at the limo ... show me where their shock wave or any other sign of them in flight is seen on any assassination film? It's nonsense to expect the assasination films to offer such detail on this matter"

I gather from this that you are not understanding what I'm saying.

One (hopefully) very last time.

we are talking about a bullet.

we are talking about a trace left by the passage of the bullet.

if the bullet was travelling directly towards the film surface it certainly would leave a trace, not unlike a 'hole'. If it was travelling directly away from the film surface, the film surface would , during exposure, be hit by photons which would travel at the speed of light back towards the film surface. the other extreme is when it travels directly across the field of view. This is probably what people who are having difficulties with this are meaning when they the bullet CANNOT be seen. Either way whatever the field of view, whatever the direction the bullet travels, photons are not taking the day off and do srtrike the bullet and those photons travel at the speed of light. These photons strike the film surface.

The trace of the bullet is another matter that also involve photons travelling at the speed of light during the time that the film surface is uncovered by the shutter. Again, they strike the film surface and affect the emulsion. FOV has nothing to do with this photon behaviour.

What does have a lot to do with it is the medium the bullet travels through, be it vaccuuum, air, air-bloodmist, a head or a brick wall. Each of these affect the bullet and the well documented twisted conical volume of medium or material at various densities caused by the passage of the bullet. This twirly conical volume of media affects the passage of photons through it.

These photons irrespective of wide or not FOV will hit the film surface (if travelling in that direction) and react with the emulsion to no lesser or greater degree than any other photon.

The conical shape of media (in this case air and an airbloodmist mixture) continues travelling/expandisng/dissipating well below the speed of the bullet (even though it's created at the rate of the bullets passage through the media.) The affect on the photons passing through this media of varying densities, when those photons travel to the film surface during exposeure leaves no more or less an impression.

Bill: "It's nonsense to expect the assasination films to offer such detail on this matter"

Perhaps its differentiation of these photons from a lot of other photons most likely in higher saturation you are talking about?

"... show me"

Maybe I or someone ese will in time do that. Those considering it should bear in mind that it's not just individual photons, but the patterns the distortion effect of the alteration of the media the bullet/s travel through that should be looked for.

In the mean time send me digitised copies of the original transparencies of frames numbered Z311, Z312, Z313, Z314 and Z315. (lossless bitmaps, UN-ehanced should suffice)*

EDIT Make that full frame with sprocket areas included, also add 310 as well, please.

Edited by John Dolva
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

×
×
  • Create New...