If The Hat Don't Fit

[Guest Duncan MacRae]

In this case the hat does fit, putting an end to the claim that "Hatman" appears only in Moorman 5.

This discovery also rules out completely, the possibility that "Hatman" could have been a shooter.

Bond 8 was taken much later, and no shooter would have stayed in his shooting position as the crowds headed towards the knoll, and in to the parking area behind the fence.

Duncan

[Bill Miller]

In this case the hat does fit, putting an end to the claim that "Hatman" appears only in Moorman 5.

This discovery also rules out completely, the possibility that "Hatman" could have been a shooter.

Bond 8 was taken much later, and no shooter would have stayed in his shooting position as the crowds headed towards the knoll, and in to the parking area behind the fence.

Duncan

Duncan, I don't see the Hat Man in your images of Bond and not even in better prints that I have access to. But about how shooters/assassins don't hang around after the shooting theory ... why would they be worried if they have already passed off their weapon? And didn't Bowers say that one of the men after the shooting was still at the same location. And didn't Officer Joe Marshal Smith possibly meet one of them?

Bill

[Miles Scull]

In this case the hat does fit, putting an end to the claim that "Hatman" appears only in Moorman 5.

This discovery also rules out completely, the possibility that "Hatman" could have been a shooter.

Bond 8 was taken much later, and no shooter would have stayed in his shooting position as the crowds headed towards the knoll, and in to the parking area behind the fence.

Duncan

Duncan, I don't see the Hat Man in your images of Bond and not even in better prints that I have access to.

I can assure you that I have the best prints, far exceeding your weak numeration redundancies off the cheap. The match is exact, just as Duncan says.

But about how shooters/assassins don't hang around after the shooting theory ... why would they be worried if they have already passed off their weapon?

Are you kidding? Not Hoffman, AGAIN?

For an utter annihilation of Hoffman see:

---> http://www.dfwvirtualtours.net/jfkstuff/freewayman.pdf

And didn't Bowers say that one of the men after the shooting was still at the same location. And didn't Officer Joe Marshal Smith possibly meet one of them?

No silly pet tricks, please!

Duncan,

Congratulations!

It's about time Shorty (aka Midget Man) took the fall.

Let's see:

Gone now are:

smoke (alleged) in Wiegman

Hoffman

GI Joe

Arnie

BM

Midget Man

Bowers' Two Men behind the fence

What's left?

Oh yeah,

Now, Hudson takes an unexpected reversal. Wouldn't you know?

Must be Miller Time.

Bill

Edited November 1, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Miles,

Calling someone 'midget man' is not any more politically correct than calling someone obese - 'Whale Man'. This has been pointed out to you sereval times - at one point you curbed your use of the word and yet again you are here showing your ignorance. As far as thinking you are going to get to me, let me share something one of the people on this forum had said to me once about you ...

"Like I have said before, I am quite sure, Miles' goal here is not to engage in true JFK assassination debate, but for some reason, to XXXXX off. He doesn't seem to attack others, he seems set on you. He is constantly trying to think of ways to discuss your research and to undermine it (at times he sticks to rather insignificant minute details, and argues about these for pages and pages)."

So you see Miles, your game has been exposed long ago. If you have far better images and they could prove me wrong, then there is no doubt that you would have posted them. The images Duncan used, while not all that great, show two different angles to the fence. The Hat Man shape is missing from the Bond photo and what Duncan has done was mistaken the foliage in Bond for the Hat Man shape in Moorman. I am certain that once Duncan sees this, then he will adjust his position because he has shown to me that he has enough class to admit when he is wrong once he realizes it.

Bill Miller

EDITED by moderator, due to language.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Miles Scull]

The images Duncan used, while not all that great, show two different angles to the fence. The Hat Man shape is missing from the Bond photo and what Duncan has done was mistaken the foliage in Bond for the Hat Man shape in Moorman. I am certain that once Duncan sees this, then he will adjust his position because he has shown to me that he has enough class to admit when he is wrong once he realizes it.

Bill Miller

I can't adjust my position on this as I am convinced that this is the same Hatman in both images. Yes, the photographs are not fantastic quality, yes they are taken from different angles, but they show the same Hatman area, just as many other photographs from different angles and differing qualities show the same people or objects, eg, Zapruder is seen in unbelievably bad images, but anyone with half a brain and sense of logic can reason that it is indeed him on the pedestal when weighing up all the facts. Check the sunspots.

Duncan

Duncan,

Agreed.

The contrast of the different angles actually enhances & reinforces the conclusion of identity of the image and makes the case, as it were.

Shorty no longer shoots into the wood of the fence.

Great work.

[Bill Miller]

I can't adjust my position on this as I am convinced that this is the same Hatman in both images. Yes, the photographs are not fantastic quality, yes they are taken from different angles, but they show the same Hatman area, just as many other photographs from different angles and differing qualities show the same people or objects, eg, Zapruder is seen in unbelievably bad images, but anyone with half a brain and sense of logic can reason that it is indeed him on the pedestal when weighing up all the facts. Check the sunspots.

Duncan

Well Duncan, people with half of a brain are supposed to learn from their past mistakes and more than once you have made claims based on poor images that eventually were proven wrong. So what do you do, instead of looking for a better quality image or contacting the 6th Floor Museum to see what the cleaner/sharper Bond images show - you once again just rest your hat (no pun intended) on something you posted that is virtual mud. The fact that Miles quickly jumped on your band wagon should make you aware that you are traveling down a wrong path. You didn't even cross reference the earlier Bond images. But this time I am not going to waste my time arguing with you. If you haven't learned anything from your past mistakes, then so be it. However, you may wish to read the children's story "Chicken Little" before deciding not to check your observations with better images in the future.

My opinion: If you look at the pitch of the fence between the two photos (Mooman and Bond) you will see that Moorman is looking uphill while Bond is more on a level plane, if not higher which causes the pitch of the fence to run slightly uphill. What has happened was that the higher elevated Bond field of view has lowered the foliage of the tree down to the level of the fence and you have mistaken it (because of such a poor quality print) to be the fedora shape seen in Moorman's photo. This same thing is noticeable in all the Bond images that I have.

MOORMAN PHOTO CROP

BOND PHOTOS

Bill

Edited November 1, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

But about how shooters/assassins don't hang around after the shooting theory ... why would they be worried if they have already passed off their weapon?

Easy, I can answer that with two words.... forensic evidence....stuck to the body and clothing of the shooter

Duncan,

Would you care to elaborate as to what level could forensic science could tell anything about a man standing in the RR yard in 1963? And before you answer - keep in mind this is not CSI 2007, but rather 1963. Use Oswald for example ... didn't even Wade or Curry say that they really had no evidence that placed Oswald up in that window with a rifle at the time of the shooting?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

As you have also done, by claiming that you can also see Hatman is a poor quality degenerated Willis image.

Actually, the Willis enlargement in Groden's book is anything but poor. And what I pointed out was that something or someone is blocking out the distant Dallas sky. Seeing how there were no objects in the RR yard to account for the shape seen through the foliage, it seemed logical that it was the Hat Man near the fence as he is also seen near the fence in Moorman's photo, which just so happens to be where the acoustic evidence placed a shooter.

False assumption, I did cross reference the images

And yet you never mentioned a word about the different in elevation between the two photographers and how that would effect how low the foliage came to the fence ... Interesting!

I've never heard of Chicken Little, must be a Yank thing I guess. What better images do you base your conclusions on?

Do a Google search and you'll see why his story would apply to what you do.

[Bill Miller]

Not really. What was or was not found on Oswald has no relevance to what might or might not have been found on the body or clothing of a shooter behind the fence in 1963.

Duncan

The question wasn't what was found on Oswald's clothing, but rather what level of forensic testing could have been done in 1963. Your side-stepping the question tells me what I was wanting to know.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

The acoustics evidence has never been proven to be reliable.

You argue that stupid alleged floating cop torso from a ridiculously blurry drum scan and you say the acoustic evidence is not reliable. You might want to rethink that position.

And yet you never mentioned a word about the different in elevation between the two photographers and how that would effect how low the foliage came to the fence ... Interesting

I like to get straight to the point.

The point is that the higher elevated photo has lowered the foliage down to the level of the fence in Bond's field of view, thus there is no way to know whats behind it.

[Bill Miller]

I gave you a fair answer to your question.

I'll elaborate slightly without having a great knowledge of forensic testing in 1963, other than to say that methods for tracing substances fired from guns and sticking to the human body, clothing, and other objects were available in 1963. Do you care to dispute that?

I'll ask the same question of you. Now could you enlighten us all with your knowledge of 1963 forensic detection methods used for finding substance traces on body or clothes from gun firing.

Let me offer the best case scenario for Oswald's defense. It was said that he had nitrate on his hands, but it was also implied that handling cardboard boxes also did the same thing. Thus it was said that there was no evidence that placed Oswald with a rifle up in that window. Today that would be different for forensic science has advanced a lot since then, but it wasn't advanced enough in 1963 to even confirm that Lee had fired a gun from the 6th floor.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Bill Miller

[John Bevilaqua]

In this case the hat does fit, putting an end to the claim that "Hatman" appears only in Moorman 5.

This discovery also rules out completely, the possibility that "Hatman" could have been a shooter.

Bond 8 was taken much later, and no shooter would have stayed in his shooting position as the crowds headed towards the knoll, and in to the parking area behind the fence.

Duncan

Who had alleged that Hatman could have been a shooter? Jack White or someone else?

Does this mean that Hatman can Get Out of Jail Free, now? I am sure his wife and penniless kids

will someday thank you forever. <grin>

But seriously I would like to know who came up with this theory? Has anyone ever identified

anyone's image allegedly seen though the trees behind the Grassy Knoll?

[Bill Miller]

The point is that your point is wrong. There are spaces between the foliage which reveal the Hatman shape.

Well, you certainly are the 'King' of seeing things in some of the worse possible prints that others have not seen in four and a half decades. The way my back is feeling this morning ... I wish I had whatever you must be on.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

That's common knowledge. What's your point? Are you saying that in 1963, that if a shooter from behind the fence blasted off a dozen rounds, then no forensic evidence from his body or clothing could possibly be traced? That's the insane impression you are giving any readers of this thread.

I don't know of any evidence that a shooter behind the fence had blasted off a dozen rounds, but tell me what you are on and maybe I can get into the same frame of mind. What I can address is that Oswald was said to have blasted off three rounds from inside an enclosed environment and no forensic evidence was said to be able to tie him into being on the 6th floor firing a rifle at the time of the assassination ... at least according to (Wade and/or Curry). So my point is merely that even if someone had been in he RR yard and fired a gun, unless they were walking around with that gun - there is no reason for them to be worried about anything, especially when there was someone close by carrying a fake Secret Service badge.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Bill

There's no shame in admitting you are wrong in this instance Bill. The quality of the scan sent to me by Chris is of superb quality, and i'm sure Chris will second that.

Duncan

Duncan,

I wish you were right because Hoffman said that the man with the hat slowly and casually walked back east along the fence, but there are no fewer than 12 places in that print where the foliage comes all the way down to the fence because of Bond's elevated LOS and there is no way on God's green earth that I would want to look like a nut by trying to support what you are saying. I wish you were here right now because I have first generation slides of those images and I have looked at them again under extreme magnification and there is nothing about that foliage that takes the shape of a fedora hat. (And when I say extreme magnification - I am not talking about computer generated magnification, but rather by using an eye piece made for close scrutiny when viewing the actual slide itself while the slide is laying on a lighted board) I can only tell you what I know. This is like Groden and Mack saying that when standing on the steps that they cannot see Bowers window and someone like Miles refuses to believe them. I'm just telling you that what you are claiming just isn't there on the slides that I have and like I said - I wish you were right because it would support Hat Man's existence. Take it for what it is worth.

And I must also address something you said about it proving that Hat Man was not a shooter. I am not sure by your general statement if that means that Hat Man existed and didn't shoot at the motorcade or if it means had Man never existed at all. I know that Josiah Thompson went to Dealey Plaza and stood where Moorman was located to see what, if anything, was still present that could show that the Hat Man shape could be accounted for whether it be a RR tower or something else. Josiah found that what ever it was that had the shape of a fedora hat in Moorman's photo was no longer present, thus it was not part of the natural surroundings. So it appears that someone was near the fence when Moorman snapped her #5 Polaroid and even if that person was still present in the Bond slides - I cannot see how that would rule them out as someone who may have taken a shot at the President for the simple fact that they could have stashed the gun or passed it off to someone else. In fact, was it not J.C. Price who said he saw someone running away from the scene. So the point being that just because someone remained in the RR yard does not mean that they were not an assassin or a conspirator in some way if what ever could link them to the shooting has since been disposed of.

Bill

Edited November 2, 2007 by Bill Miller