Jump to content


Spartacus

The Holland Shooter


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#31 Chris Davidson

Chris Davidson

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,364 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 10:34 PM

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


Hi Charles,

I didn't use it as a timing reference to the headshot/Z film. If that's the indication I gave, I apologize.

According to the acoustical evidence I've heard, the last 2 shots were approx. 7/10 second apart. Fired on direct command from close but different positions, quite possible.

Shooting position is established by the enhanced photo. imo

When/If they fired from THIS position, unsure at this point.

chris

#32 Bill Miller

Bill Miller

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington
  • Interests:Photograph and film interpreting

Posted 12 March 2007 - 10:45 PM

Thanks Chris..yes I roughly agree with Bernice's figures based on the map, although i'd say it was maybe around 20ft judging by the Mark Lane frame. Some points of reference.

Duncan


Duncan - I am glad someone posted the capture and it is the same location I have been talking about. Find the location shown in the Nix film gif that Needham did years ago. Now count the sun patches on the wooden fence in both the Nix film and Moorman photo to each alleged persons position and you will be forced to see that they are not one in the same location.

Bill


#33 Bernice Moore

Bernice Moore

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,628 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted 13 March 2007 - 01:14 AM

Rick Needham's Nix Gif.....working, I do hope.Hope this helps.

http://i151.photobuc...moore_nix_r.gif


The follow two research photos are also I believe Rick Needhams......is not please let me know..





BTW: Charlie, for what it's worth..I very, very rarely consult the
Zapruder film.

B...

Edited by Bernice Moore, 13 March 2007 - 05:06 AM.


#34 Robin Unger

Robin Unger

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,316 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 13 March 2007 - 01:39 PM

This frame may be of some use, it seems to show the same area.




#35 Bill Miller

Bill Miller

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington
  • Interests:Photograph and film interpreting

Posted 14 March 2007 - 02:33 AM

2./ Duncan Correct, Bill Wrong

Using the same criteria so that there can be no doubt, I can now say with certainty that the location of Holland in the Mark Lane clip is the same location as My suspected shooter. I was therefore correct in my previous analysis. This can be seen by viewing Holland's location between the Numbered marked Pyracantha trees in the Mark Lane frame.

Does anyone disagree with this analysis, and if so, why?

Duncan


Duncan, did I not make myself clear when I told you to take the Moorman photo and the Nix film and count the sun patches on the fence so to see if your alleged floating torso was at the same place as the Hatman in Moorman's photo? Those sunspots seen at the time of the assassination have distinct shapes and it should be quite easy for anyone to match them up between the Nix film and Moorman's photo. If perspective only confuses you, then matching up the sun patches should help you. We have been through all this before and waiting for an extended period of time only to promote the error once again does not make it right this time around.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller, 14 March 2007 - 02:34 AM.


#36 Miles Scull

Miles Scull

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 02:56 AM

:peace

Duncan, did I not make myself clear...


Bill,

See: http://hometown.aol....RAJECTORIES.gif

The tree is critical. If a single shot was fired from behind the long arm of the picket fence, was its trajectory, from the totality of the current photographic evidence, to the right or left of the tree?

What say you? :idea

Miles

Edited by Miles Scull, 14 March 2007 - 03:02 AM.


#37 Bill Miller

Bill Miller

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington
  • Interests:Photograph and film interpreting

Posted 15 March 2007 - 09:54 PM

Duncan, did I not make myself clear when I told you to take the Moorman photo and the Nix film and count the sun patches on the fence so to see if your alleged floating torso was at the same place as the Hatman in Moorman's photo? Those sunspots seen at the time of the assassination have distinct shapes and it should be quite easy for anyone to match them up between the Nix film and Moorman's photo. If perspective only confuses you, then matching up the sun patches should help you. We have been through all this before and waiting for an extended period of time only to promote the error once again does not make it right this time around.

Bill

Read my posting Post #48 again.

Duncan


Duncan, reading your reply again only meant that I had to read your mistake once again when you said, "Using the same criteria so that there can be no doubt, I can now say with certainty that the location of Holland in the Mark Lane clip is the same location as My suspected shooter." If one counts the small trees in Moorman's photo - they will see that from where Mary stood when she took her photo that Hat Man was near the first small tree along the west stretch of fence. The same can be said about Holland and Lane. There are four or more small trees from the corner of the fence in your post #1 Moorman enlargement before you get to your floating torso man. Having now pointed out the obvious ... do you still wish to say that Holland is at the same location as your floating torso man?

Bill


#38 Bill Miller

Bill Miller

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington
  • Interests:Photograph and film interpreting

Posted 15 March 2007 - 11:38 PM

You Bill, having read my reply again, should have said " I had to MISread your mistake again"


Duncan, you appear to be grossly misinterpreting the geography of the knoll concerning the location of the small trees between filming locations. I hope that my example below clears it up for you. I have taken the liberty to match the sunspots on the fence between the Nix film and Moorman's photo seeing how you didn't bother to do so. I also numbered the small trees for you, as well.

Attached File  duncs_trees.jpg   39.9KB   3 downloads

Bill


#39 Bill Miller

Bill Miller

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington
  • Interests:Photograph and film interpreting

Posted 16 March 2007 - 03:37 PM

You are correct in your analysis of the Holland location. I was wrong.
Your impossible midget hatman shooter, who must have been standing back from the 5ft ( on his side) fence, is in the Holland location, and could not have fired a shot from behind the fence at this elevation. My shooter is a more likely candidate in my opinion.

Duncan







My so-called 'midget shooter' seems to have been the person who fired before the Badge Man, thus he has had a moment to start to back away from the fence. I might also add that Moorman is looking uphill, so this person will look short to the fence if they are not standing right up against the fence. I can only say that if I had done the deed .... I would have stood back a few feet from the fence so not to be easily seen from the street as people looked up the knoll and I would have then rested my gun barrel between the fence slats so to get a steady shot off. Then all I would need to do is pull my gun back as I started to turn away from the scene which is what Ed Hoffman claims to have witnessed.

Edited by Bill Miller, 16 March 2007 - 03:41 PM.


#40 Miles Scull

Miles Scull

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts

Posted 16 March 2007 - 06:41 PM

... My shooter is a more likely candidate in my opinion.

Duncan


I would have then rested my gun barrel between the fence slats so to get a steady shot off. Then all I would need to do is pull my gun back as I started to turn away from the scene which is what Ed Hoffman claims to have witnessed.


Bill, a sniper or a hunter never rests his barrel on anything if his target is moving. (If the target is stationary or has very little movement, then such supporting of the barrel becomes a possibility.) Placing the barrel between the fence slats guarantees a miss. Why? Because a stationary rifle limits the field of fire to a single point. Also, the slats would obscure sight & sighting of the approaching target making anticipation & timing virtually impossible. The option would be that the shooter would have to shuttle his body from right to left to swing the rifle in a rotation on the fulcrum point of the fence. Again never done. :unsure:

Miles

#41 Bill Miller

Bill Miller

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington
  • Interests:Photograph and film interpreting

Posted 18 March 2007 - 01:03 AM

Bill, a sniper or a hunter never rests his barrel on anything if his target is moving. (If the target is stationary or has very little movement, then such supporting of the barrel becomes a possibility.) Placing the barrel between the fence slats guarantees a miss. Why? Because a stationary rifle limits the field of fire to a single point. Also, the slats would obscure sight & sighting of the approaching target making anticipation & timing virtually impossible. The option would be that the shooter would have to shuttle his body from right to left to swing the rifle in a rotation on the fulcrum point of the fence. Again never done. :unsure:

Miles


Miles,

I can only go by what I have done with a gun and understand concerning the evidence of this case. It isn't like a sniper positioned at the Hat Man location would be needing to swing his gun from side to side so to follow a target such as a quail flying across his field of view. Instead, a slow moving car out in front of you and traveling at a slight angle away from you is virtually stationary for the most part. Let us keep in mind that the view Zapruder had was not the look that the Hat Man was seeing at the time of the kill shot. I also know that an opening in the crowd or between trees and/or foliage can be sought out before hand and one only needs to allow the target to pass through the chosen opening to fire a shot off.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller, 18 March 2007 - 01:05 AM.


#42 Miles Scull

Miles Scull

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts

Posted 18 March 2007 - 02:48 PM

Post deleted.

Edited by Miles Scull, 18 March 2007 - 03:04 PM.


#43 Miles Scull

Miles Scull

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts

Posted 18 March 2007 - 02:50 PM

Bill, a sniper or a hunter never rests his barrel on anything if his target is moving. (If the target is stationary or has very little movement, then such supporting of the barrel becomes a possibility.) Placing the barrel between the fence slats guarantees a miss. Why? Because a stationary rifle limits the field of fire to a single point. Also, the slats would obscure sight & sighting of the approaching target making anticipation & timing virtually impossible. The option would be that the shooter would have to shuttle his body from right to left to swing the rifle in a rotation on the fulcrum point of the fence. Again never done. :unsure:

Miles


Miles,

I can only go by what I have done with a gun and understand concerning the evidence of this case. It isn't like a sniper positioned at the Hat Man location would be needing to swing his gun from side to side so to follow a target such as a quail flying across his field of view. Instead, a slow moving car out in front of you and traveling at a slight angle away from you is virtually stationary for the most part. Let us keep in mind that the view Zapruder had was not the look that the Hat Man was seeing at the time of the kill shot. I also know that an opening in the crowd or between trees and/or foliage can be sought out before hand and one only needs to allow the target to pass through the chosen opening to fire a shot off.
Bill


Bill,

These are your exact words:


..I would have then rested my gun barrel between the fence slats so to get a steady shot off.



Take a look at these photos of the picket fence:

Posted Image

Posted Image

As you can see, by placing the barrel of a rifle "between the fence slats", you effectively restrict the field of fire to a single point. The slat(s) to the left of the barrel will block any visual sight of the target as it moves, however slowly, from left to right (unless you are, absurdly, moving your body from right to left to travel the stock :huh: ). This means that an accurate sighting of the target, through the rifle sights or through a scope, would require a shooter to adjust for correct alignment up & down in a fraction of a second. Remember a sniper or a hunter always employs a steady, continuous finger squeeze on the trigger to insure an accurate hit. No jerks.

Thus, a placing of the barrel between the slats severely limits a shooter & renders the probability of a fatal hit to nearly zero. Remember a shooter would not know in advance the rate of travel of the limo; the limo could speed up or slow down unpredictably, which in fact it actually did do. A sniper or a hunter would know all of this from training & experience & would never for a second consider such a self-defeating & counter-intuitive nonsense. In other words, a sniper would want to hit his target, not miss it; he, consequently, maximizes his chances & does not deliberately minimize them.


Miles

Edited by Miles Scull, 18 March 2007 - 03:00 PM.


#44 Miles Scull

Miles Scull

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts

Posted 18 March 2007 - 10:43 PM

Bill, a sniper or a hunter never rests his barrel on anything if his target is moving. (If the target is stationary or has very little movement, then such supporting of the barrel becomes a possibility.) Placing the barrel between the fence slats guarantees a miss. Why? Because a stationary rifle limits the field of fire to a single point. Also, the slats would obscure sight & sighting of the approaching target making anticipation & timing virtually impossible. The option would be that the shooter would have to shuttle his body from right to left to swing the rifle in a rotation on the fulcrum point of the fence. Again never done. :unsure:

Miles


Miles,

I can only go by what I have done with a gun and understand concerning the evidence of this case. It isn't like a sniper positioned at the Hat Man location would be needing to swing his gun from side to side so to follow a target such as a quail flying across his field of view. Instead, a slow moving car out in front of you and traveling at a slight angle away from you is virtually stationary for the most part. Let us keep in mind that the view Zapruder had was not the look that the Hat Man was seeing at the time of the kill shot. I also know that an opening in the crowd or between trees and/or foliage can be sought out before hand and one only needs to allow the target to pass through the chosen opening to fire a shot off.

Bill


Addendum:

Posted Image

On further consideration, it would appear that the line of the fence intersects umbrella man exactly.

See: http://hometown.aol....RAJECTORIES.gif

An estimated 25 degree angle from shooter to umbrella to Z-313, would put a barrel resting for a shot at, say, Z-309 in an extremely unstable position. The barrel would be resting against two slats at points very near the the pointed apexes of those slats. Consequently, any movement of the rifle, right or left, up or down, however slight (breathing) would cause an instantaneous sharp loss of correct alignment, recovery from which would mean certain loss of a critical opportunity. (The tree [Hudson?] trunk is only inches to the right of optimal trajectories.)


#45 Bill Miller

Bill Miller

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington
  • Interests:Photograph and film interpreting

Posted 19 March 2007 - 03:24 AM

As you can see, by placing the barrel of a rifle "between the fence slats", you effectively restrict the field of fire to a single point. The slat(s) to the left of the barrel will block any visual sight of the target as it moves, however slowly, from left to right (unless you are, absurdly, moving your body from right to left to travel the stock :unsure: ). This means that an accurate sighting of the target, through the rifle sights or through a scope, would require a shooter to adjust for correct alignment up & down in a fraction of a second. Remember a sniper or a hunter always employs a steady, continuous finger squeeze on the trigger to insure an accurate hit. No jerks.

Thus, a placing of the barrel between the slats severely limits a shooter & renders the probability of a fatal hit to nearly zero. Remember a shooter would not know in advance the rate of travel of the limo; the limo could speed up or slow down unpredictably, which in fact it actually did do. A sniper or a hunter would know all of this from training & experience & would never for a second consider such a self-defeating & counter-intuitive nonsense. In other words, a sniper would want to hit his target, not miss it; he, consequently, maximizes his chances & does not deliberately minimize them.



I do not know how the shot was fired, but I stand behind the possibility that with the limo coming down the street and the shooter out in front and to the side that the shot merely needed a bit of timing so to have pulled it off. I have shot at many moving targets by picking a point out ahead of them and waiting for the target to pass a certain point before pulling the trigger. At the time of the kill shot - the limo was moving under 5 mph which is virtually motionless at that angle. I also doubt that the shooter was aiming for the very top of JFK's head because had the bullet have been aimed 2" higher - history may have been recorded differently. The bone plate came off the very top of the head. Shots were not hitting their mark during the assassination unless we are to believe that someone shot JFK in the neck on purpose or had meant to shoot Connally in the armpit for some odd reason. Because of such a botched investigation - we will never know the truth. For me the closest thing to the truth lies with the witnesses who were there.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller, 19 March 2007 - 04:10 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users