Bill Miller

No, but normally someone who is making claims that have been called into question will want to solicit the help of another so to try and see if their observations are correct .... unless of course one doesn't really want to risk finding out that they are incorrect. About your Arnold figure ... can you post the image without the color crop inserted. You see, the first thing I have learned by now is to check and make sure that the insert is actually scaled properly. Thanks! Bill

Sure, Mary Moorman is looking uphill and they are different distances from her camera - just as Hudson and YOUR alleged assassin is at a difference distance from the camera. Get Don's map and do some measurements. then maybe you'll better understand what you see and why you see it the way you do. Len Colby and John Dolva are pretty sharp - ask them to work out the shrinkage ratios and apply it to YOUR alleged assassin. Bill

deleted duplicate post

Duncan, I have made my position very clear and even used various assassination images to show how 'perspective' works. I think someone, maybe YOU, replied with some silly remark about Picasso's paintings not keeping things in perspective ... as if that had anything to do with the real world. (sigh~) You then posted several small images of this alleged character ... one such example someone posted what looked like 4 bird droppings as if that would be helpful. Instead, I stuck with the enlargement showing YOUR outline against that of the men on the steps. I have repeatedly pointed out that even with the hat on or off - YOUR alleged drawing is many times still too large for that distance from Moorman's camera. I have asked you several times to have it checked by someone experienced in perspective like an art teacher or a photographer - and I so far you have not said anything about even wanting to test your position. Until you do so, then IMO you are just making excuses to try and salvage a bad interpretation. Bill

There were said to be 14 witnesses on the underpass and I believe that is the number that I once counted in Altgens 7. About names of the RR workers ... can anyone cite the name of the guy who was flashing the fake SS badge to Officer Smith? How about Hat Man's name? Hey - what if one or both RR men near the boxes were involved in the assassination ... would they say they saw someone behind the fence with a gun, or if they heard a shot or seen smoke come through the trees just 60 to 80 feet away? (Probably not!) Bill

The answer is simple ... I wanted people to compare YOUR outline of the alleged man's head against that of Emmett Hudson's or any of the other men on the steps. By using YOUR outline, then there can be no room for saying that I misrepresented the borders of YOUR alleged figure. Bill (see image in post #197)

Duncan, I have been talking about the head sizes. The hat has nothing to do with anything because the size difference in their heads alone should be far greater and they are not. Any luck having someone of expertise look at the image? Bill

Duncan, you are sounding like a spoiled kid. If you could rebut what I have said by way of someone with expertise in the matter - there is no doubt in my mind that you would do so. Until you do, then IMO you are wasting my time for now it isn't an opinion you have based on any factual data, but rather on a belief system. Bill

Duncan - you can draw in a ten gallon hat or a hat the size that an organ grinder's monkey would wear ... none of it has anything to do with the still increased shrinkage ratio that your drawing doesn't allow for. I mean - you also told us about seeing a face as well and we can imagine how the face fits on the head and the head fits inside the hat - we got it! The images used in response #193 were all found on Moorman's photo in which Mary photographed them all through the same camera lens, thus no confusion over lens differences should arise. So all is left is the size variances. Have you compared the head size difference between Hargis and Bill Newman to that of your alleged shooter and the men on the steps or would doing that also be considered garbage and should be avoided at all cost??? Bill

Duncan, you seemingly could not follow a bloody elephant in a freshly fallen snow. I wasn't saying that the Moorman and Cancellare lenses were the same, but rather they all show a set ratio of sizing alike objects in their different fields of depth within a photo. So let us use just the Moorman photograph once again ... The distance between Hargis and Channey is between 15 to 18 feet at their closest points. The vast shrinkage between their heads in accordance with Moorman's camera is as follows - (see animation) Now note the distance between Hargis and Bill Newman which is approximately the distance between the alleged shooter and the men on the steps. Pretty big difference - right? Both seen through just Moorman's lens - right? Of course they are and this is why I have said that your alleged outline is not even in the ball park as far as someone being seen that big from such a distance. (see animation) Do their head sizes vastly differ or are they anywhere close to being the same??? Anyone can compare your outline of the alleged shooter's head in relation to the men on the steps and apply that to the same ratio of shrinkage that Moorman gives any two objects seen 35 to 40 feet further from the camera to the other. The rule of "perspective" is solid and your alleged shooter can not hold up against it and come across as real. You simply took a cluster of tree foliage and drew in an outline resembling human shape, while not considering its size in relationship to its distance from the camera. Don't take my word for it - feel free to email it to anyone experienced in art or photography and they will tell you the same thing. Bill

The next thing someone will do is start visualizing Holland actually jumping over cars like a super hero. Sam's terminology was just a figure of speech that has been used to mislead people as to whether Hoffman could have seen someone walk the fence line to the steam pipe. The diagram posted showing the distance between the fence and the car bumpers certainly doesn't support there being cars butted up to the fence, thus making someone walking the fence line impossible as earlier post was trying to lead us to believe. As stated before - the distance being discussed is a 'par four' on a golf course whereas the flag can be seen when Tee'ing off. And as I recall, it wasn't just the idea that Ed could not have seen a gun from that distance, but that he could not have seen the assassin walk the fence line either. thus Ed's honesty and sincerity was called into question IMO. Bill Miller

Yes, I make quick illustrations and give them names that will best help me remember where they go. Then I delete them from my computer. No heads fits within the other??? Even the width of the head belonging to the guy on the steps fits within the outline. This is so ridiculous that your alleged head isn't even in the ball park. The differences in distance to the camera for each should be like seeing a baseball against the size of a soccer ball. Other than the numbered photo example being in black and white ... Did you not get anything else out of it? Question: Have you bothered emailing some of these points to an art teacher or someone experienced in photography to see if they are valid or not? If not - why not? Bill

EBC, Interesting that you used the words "sophism" and "perspective" in your reply while still applauding Duncan's error as if it hasn't been shown to exist. The first two definitions refer to a science that is structured on how the reality of the universe works. The third definition would apply to someone trying to ignore the first two definitions and offering a deliberate invalid excuse as to why the more distant head outline in Duncan's illustration is so big when compared with the size of Hudson's head on a 2D image. Definitions - 1) perspective: The technique of representing three-dimensional objects and depth relationships on a two-dimensional surface. 2) vanishing point: In linear perspective, the point on the horizon line at which lines or edges that are parallel appear to converge. 3) sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone. The photo example below showing the head shrinkage between witnesses at less than 20 feet apart (McKinnon to Newman) and again at around 40 feet apart (McKinnon to the cycle officer) is in scale with the field of view. The linear perspective is correct and the field of depth remains consistent throughout the photograph. The enlarged outline of Duncan's shooter compared to Hudson is posted below once again. The two images are to scale as taken from Duncan's past post and overlaid on top of each other for visual effect. The ratio of shrinkage between the heads of Duncan's outline and Hudson do not show the same ratio of shrinkage seen throughout other objects within Moorman's field of view. (I wasn't sure what the small images in an earlier post were all about ... they were too small IMO so to check for detailed accuracy, but when the enlargement is used, then it cuts down on the chances of sophism occurring. (see definition number 3). The head of someone on the steps should not fit into an outline of an alleged head seen much further away from the camera. Bill Miller

That seems like silly logic - its like asking why it was that when Holland said 'Connally was driven down into the floor of the limo' ... when no film shows this occurrence, did Holland exaggerate that observation?. The RR yard was sectioned and there were cars parked in each section. The photographs and films give us a glimpse of how they really looked. BTW, are you done reading Ed's book already? Was there anything that you learned from it that clears up any of the misconceptions that you originally had? Bill Miller

Are you asking the ground distance or the LOS distance? (Check Don's map) Bill

The 'George Jefferies film' shows the coat really well IMO. Bill Miller

I have taken the liberty to reply to the post below that I have taken from another thread. BM Advanced Member *** Group: Members Posts: 251 Joined: 17-February 06 Member No.: 4318 QUOTE(Duncan MacRae @ Jun 23 2007, 11:39 AM) * Check your PM Duncan As has been stated before - beware of figures of speech. From where Ed was located on Stemmons Freeway, anyone can disappear from view and/or appear to be stopped near the RR boxes and never have gotten right up to the boxes. It makes a difference depending on the angle at which they are seen. An example might be offered by way of the Willis photo. The witnesses in Phil's photo can appear to look to be shoulder to shoulder, yet when seen from Bronson's angle they obviously are much more spaced apart than how they appeared in the Willis photo. About the witnesses mentioned above - Someone standing at the particular spot along the RR bridge cannot see beyond the edge of the fence. In fact, none of those two witnesses ever said anything about the man throwing something near the steam pipe following the shooting as was reported to Seymour Weitzman by another witness who was on the underpass. Nothing is ever cut and dry. Bill Miller

Great, Ken! Will do & thanks! Thanks to Debra Conway for sending Ed Hoffman's booklet Eyewitness. This booklet was last updated in 1997 & was originally published by Lancer in 1995. It is extremely scarce. I found only 1 copy available on Abebooks ( http://www.abebooks.com/ ) & it was offered at $250.00! Wow. I think Lancer is planning a new printing of Eyewitness. I would recommend to any researcher interested in the Ed Hoffman question that he should he should carefully examine Ed's booklet because it presents a lot of data that is necessary to have to combine with other data in order to reach a comprehensive appreciation of the current state of research on the subject. Without Eyewitness only a partial evaluation is possible. Get this booklet! Having said this, it should be added that Ed's booklet does not answer certain important questions & in fact raises questions that only additional data analysis, incorporating data not found in Eyewitness, can address. Duke & others are engaged in continuing research. For my part, I would like to stress that even if problems are still found with Ed's story, it should be understood that that fact in no way reflects on Ed as a well meaning & sincere person who is only telling it like he saw it. I can might suggest that people not be afraid to speak to other researchers who did interview these witnesses because sometimes we have asked questions that no one else thought to do. Not everything makes it into print, nor was thought of at the time so to be asked. How many of us have read the transcripts of witnesses testimony where we kept asking ourselves 'why they are not asking the question that we want to know about?' The specific condition of the back of the President's head as seen by those in and around the limo and at Parkland Hospital could be one example. Gordon Arnold's story for another example was eventually covered and the interviewer never asked Gordon what he was wearing at the time of the assassination. Gary Mack was the first researcher to ask Gordon this all important question years after Gordon's story had first broke. That didn't mean that Gordon hadn't told other people what specific clothes he had worn that day - it just means the research community as a whole had not heard about it at the time. So no one should ever be afraid to ask more questions in hopes that there may be more information out there to be considered. Bill Miller

I would also take the time to recommend getting Trask book "That Day in Dallas" and look at the Murry photo on page 81. That photo shows a fair portion of the parking lot from what appears to be the LOS from the corner of the westmost shelter out to the RR car sitting on the NW side of the parking lot. The tower Bowers sat in during the shooting is in that photo and can be used to get one's bearings as to where the photo was taken from. Then instead of hanging one's hat on a figure of speech like that Holland used, one can actually look at the photo to get a sense of the way the cars were parked in the lot. I remember from Bowers statements as to how a car came into the RR yard and had driven up near the location of where the two men had been positioned while waiting for the motorcade to arrive. (The sea must have been at low tide at that time) From the Murry photo on page 81, it appears that bumper to bumper must have meant to Holland that the cars were parked facing the same way (side by side) ... and not actually up against one another like the impression some have given to Holland's remarks. It also appears that there is ample room to walk in front of the cars as seen in the same Murry photo, but in all fairness to the critics - it does not show the north side of the east to west stretch of fence in question. The photograph does however look like it shows the area that led to the fence that ran north and south. There seems to be enough information in that photo to show that what Holland called a 'sea of cars' differs somewhat from what the photo shows and that the rest may be left up to interpretation and the choice of words used to describe it. Bill Miller

Thanks for the heads up ... I too have been having problems with duplicate post the last few days. I will delete it.

Before I answer, lets get some facts on record. My shooter is 33 ft approx from the corner of the fence. Give me an approximate same distance for hatman. Give me your distance of the big tree from the corner of the fence. Re: Your witness hearing shots. Haven't you heard of silencers? Re The smoke. Holland stated that the smoke was 8 to 10 ft from the ground. Isn't it possible with the south westerly wind that the smoke could also travel that same distance east at the same time? Smoke disperses quickly. Holland could have seen the smoke in the wrong location Duncan The Hat Man location is between 10 to 15 feet from the corner of the fence. When looking perpendicular to the fence - the Hat Man would have been to the left of the Hudson tree - the right of that tree when viewed from an angle from Moorman's location. The Hudson tree can be found on Don's map which should show it pretty close to being in line with the corner of the fence. The accoustic findings gave an estimate of about 8 feet from the corner of the fence with a 5 foot leeway ... meaning that the shooter could have been as far as 13 feet from the corner of the fence. This is the area where no less than 5 witnesses on the underpass saw the smoke come through the trees. I supposed that the witnesses on the underpass who said they saw the smoke could have fallen under some mass-hallucination where they all got it wrong, but then I cannot see how the Wiegman film could have been altered to match their observations if they all had got it wrong. And yes, smoke disperses quickly if cast into a stiff wind. However, gun smoke has a heavier density than air and it can drift for a long ways depending on the air flow it passes through. A gun propels the smoke out the end of the barrel and the smoke spreads out the further from the gun it gets. The smoke seen in the Wiegman film is still holding together as it comes through the trees. What do you think? And yes, I have heard of silencers, but I never heard of any witnesses saying they saw a floating torso of an oversized assassin elevated above the stockade fence. Bowers described just two men - one in a plaid coat and the other heavy set individual in dark clothing.

Duplicate post deleted.

Duncan, one might also say that any shooter would have thought it to be suicide to stand behind a fence with a tower watchman positioned behind him and shoot at the President of the United States, but it didn't seem to stop him any more than you are trying to sell the idea that some lunatic stood on a car and took such a risk. Of course when you have someone spotting for you who has a fake SS badge - maybe the risk are not so great any more. And about writing off the Hat Man. Does it not seem funny to you that witnesses put the sound of one of the shots at the Hat Man location which is where the smoke came through the trees at that same instant and yet you quickly write that spot off, but choose a location where no shot was heard, nor was any smoke seen coming from that location along the fence ... how do you justify your conclusions? Bill

Miles, you seem to like to use Holland's figure of speech where he says "sea of cars" and how they were bumper to bumper. It seems obvious that Holland referenced the RR yard as a whole as looking like this. With that said, look at the photos taken by Jim Murry in Trask book "That Day in Dallas, or the Martin film, or the Jimmy Darnell film, or the Don Cook footage of the RR yard minutes after the shooting and point out the 'bumper to bumper' cars. In recently speaking to Gary Mack - we agreed that this figure of speech that Holland used was a dumb thing to say. Cars could not have been bumper to bumper literally or no one would be able to get their car out of there. Holland didn't have to climb over cars no more than Connally was "driven down into the floor" of the limo, which was another figure of speech that Holland exaggerated. So I ask that the films and photos be looked at for which would be more accurate - Holland's descriptive figure of speech or actual films and photos showing how things really were at the time ... I am inclined to believe the photos and films unless shown they were altered. Bill

Duncan, you do know that the man next to Hudson is closer to Moorman's camera than he is - right? Go back to post 135 and look at the examples once again. From Cheryl McKinn on to Bill Newman is less than 20 feet ... do you not see how drastic the head sizes dropped between those two locations. The distance between Hudson and the spot at the fence that you have chosen is double that, thus your alleged shooters head should be MUCH smaller than what it is in your outline. Don't take my word for it ... call a local school who teaches art or photography and ask them if it would be ok for you to email them a photo and show what I have said and see if it isn't true. Just look at the SS agents heads compared to AJ Millican wearing the hard hat in the Willis photo. Millican is hardly 15 feet away from the car and his head is drastically smaller than the agents heads. Your figure is far too big to even be in the ballpark and there is nothing you can do about it other than not to show it to people qualified to tell you better so not to have admit that you screwed up on this one. Bill