Bill Miller

A non-responsive answer. Another non-responsive answer. Mr. HOLLAND - Well. immediately after the shots was fired, I run around the end of this overpass, behind the fence to see if I could see anyone up there behind the fence. Mr. STERN - That is the picket fence? Mr. HOLLAND - That is the picket fence. Mr. STERN - On the north side of Elm Street? Mr. HOLLAND - Of course, this was this sea of cars in there and it was just a big-it wasn't an inch in there that wasn't automobiles Holland, according to you, ran out into the RR yard and didn't choose a path next to the fence, thus from his present location at that time - he probably couldn't see up in that corner because of the parked cars - not to mention the overhanging trees as seen in the Moorman photo. Yet in the large Willis photo in Groden's book called "The Killing of a President" ... the Hat Man can be seen over the fence and through the foliage with nothing but a Dallas sky for a backdrop. What this means is that you are inventing a scene that never existed. All I can do is suggest that you follow Holland's statements more closely and consider his field of view from that location. Below Holland says that from where the footprints were seen that one could not see over the fence (obviously to the street below) without standing on a bumper of a car. The fence is only 5' tall, thus Holland is talking about a location that is not right up against the fence, but rather back from it far enough that one could not see the parade passing below without elevating themselves. Think about this and see if it doesn't make perfect sense for even Holland was able to see over the fence when he and Lane went to that location. This is one of the reasons why I have always believed that only the top of Hat Man's fedora is seen in Moorman's photo and that reason is because he was not right up against the fence when he fired and Moorman's uphill view allowed her camera to only capture the top of the hat as this individual started to move away. Mr. HOLLAND - Well, as if someone had cleaned their foot, or stood up on the bumper to see over the fence. Mr. STERN - I see. Mr. HOLLAND - Because, you couldn't very well see over it standing down in the mud, or standing on the ground, and to get a better view you could---- Mr. STERN - Was there anything else you noticed about this station wagon? Mr. HOLLAND - No. That is an interesting supposition, but one that is lacking in careful thought. We know that the two men Bowers had seen had gone somewhere, so where are their footprints??? You see, you do not have enough information to know why those prints were in one area and possibly not others. Was that one area a low spot that held water so that it was muddy while the rest of the RR yard was not ... we just do not know. But something has to explain why footprints were left behind while no trail leading away could not be followed and this is why your assumption is lacking IMO. These guys certainly were not beamed up by Scotty onboard of the USS Enterprise. Wow - you got that out of Holland saying, "I was in front of the cars, then I went in front of the cars." Now use that uncanny ability to explain why you believe there were no footprints leading away from that spot. I look forward to hearing your answer. But the car wasn't close enough to the 5' tall fence for someone to not need to stand on a bumper to see the street below. Does this not register with you? Well, there obviously was enough room to stand between the cars and not see over a measly 5' high fence because being even within a foot or two of that fence would not prevent an averaged sized individual from seeing over it to the street below. I know this is a fact for I have tested it myself while in the RR yard. It seems that time constraints have kept you from doing a lot of things, but thats ok - take as much time as you need to give a little more thought to the things Holland - not just to the Commission, but to Mark Lane as well.

Deleted duplicate post

To find the location along the fence that Duncan is talking about in other assassination images is quite simple. This feat can be accomplished by simply matching up the sunspots on the fence with any assassination film or photo taken of the stockade fence. Hat Man stood just west of the first large sunspot starting from the eastmost corner of the fence. That sunspot is quite noticeable in Moorman's photograph, as well as in all the images of the fence on 11/22/63. Bill HM - Hat Man and DM - Duncan are inserted on the image below by using the sunspots on the fence for reference points.

Please show me below where Holland said what you just attributed to him? In fact, in the last set of questions and answers below ... Holland seemed to have misspoken when he said, "I was in front of the cars, then I went in front of the cars." he goes on to say that after he got up to the fence - that he was able to walk back down looking around. Nothing is crystal clear, so tell me what Holland meant when he said he 'walked back down looking around'? Does that statement imply that one could walk down the fence line? Mr. HOLLAND - Well. immediately after the shots was fired, I run around the end of this overpass, behind the fence to see if I could see anyone up there behind the fence. Mr. STERN - That is the picket fence? Mr. HOLLAND - That is the picket fence. Mr. STERN - On the north side of Elm Street? Mr. HOLLAND - Of course, this was this sea of cars in there and it was just a big-it wasn't an inch in there that wasn't automobiles and I couldn't see up in that corner. I ran on up to the corner of this fence behind the building. By the time I got there there were 12 or 15 policemen and plainclothesmen, and we looked for empty shells around there for quite a while, and I left because I had to get back to the office. I didn't give anyone my name. No one--didn't anyone ask for it, and it wasn't but an hour or so until the deputy sheriff came down to the office and took me back up to the courthouse. Mr. MORRISON - That is Elm Street. It would be behind the fence, wouldn't it? Mr. HOLLAND - Well, I have got the fence running up here, and this car would be back in there [indicating]. This is the trees out here, which would--and that is approximately the same location as---the car and the trees that I saw the smoke would probably be the same location. Mr. STERN - All right. And this was a station wagon? Mr. HOLLAND - Now, the reason I didn't think so much about that at the time, was because there was so many people out there, and there was law enforcement officers and I thought, well, if there is anything to that they would pick that up, or notice it, but it looks like someone had been standing there for a long time, because it was muddy. Mr. STERN - Tracks you saw in the mud? Mr. HOLLAND - It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just---- Mr. STERN - And then you saw some mud on the bumper? Mr. HOLLAND - Mud on the bumper in two spots. Mr. STERN - As if someone had cleaned his foot, or--- Mr. HOLLAND - Well, as if someone had cleaned their foot, or stood up on the bumper to see over the fence. Mr. STERN - I see. Mr. HOLLAND - Because, you couldn't very well see over it standing down in the mud, or standing on the ground, and to get a better view you could---- Mr. STERN - Was there anything else you noticed about this station wagon? Mr. HOLLAND - No. Mr. STERN - When you first came around, that was quite soon after the 'shots were fired? Mr. HOLLAND - Yes. Mr. STERN - And did you notice anything about this station wagon? Mr. HOLLAND - I was in front of the cars, then I went in front of the cars. Mr. STERN - In front of the cars--- Mr. HOLLAND - The cars they were parked pretty close to the fence, and I came up in front of the cars and got over to the fence and then walked back down looking around, just like the rest of them.

Imaginary hand??? How can someone claim they see a shooter in a fuzzy B&W photo, but cannot see the man's hand who is holding the rifle? Are you sure you want to try and keep dancing here because you are not helping convince anyone that your interpretation skills are any good if you cannot see the man's hand. (see below) And while you are here, do you care to explain why the people's heads on the knoll are so small just from the Hat Man's location looking back the other way and yet your alleged shooter's head is roughly as big as Hudson's head. I would appreciate you just addressing that much. Thanks! Bill

I specifically said that if that the lines were all going to a vanishing point, then the further object is much larger. ("If the lanes all run to a vanishing point, then the distant object takes up no less than 5 to 6 lanes in width, thus it is not the same size as the closer object which fits into one lane.") Also, all photos are 2D. Is it your position that Moorman's photo is altered? Class dismissed? You didn't say anything. Moorman's photo is a 2D image that is of the real world. An artist recreating that image must work off a vanishing point so to keep the image in scale. Let me know when class resumes so you can address the rest of this. If you were a knoller', then you would appear to know more than you have presented to this forum. When you were on the knoll - did you visit the RR yard and look out towards Stemmons Freeway because if you have, then you have failed to mention it. Did you shoot any recreation photos? Did you take any measurements of the area? Did you go in and ask to see the collection of post assassination films and photos of the RR yard? It appears from your responses that you didn't bother going out onto the underpass to see how one could not see down to the end of the fence because of the way the high columns are lined up. Did you even bother to check if you could see the area where the steam pipe was located so to know if it was possible for the witness Seymour Weitzman spoke with could have actually noticed something being tossed there as he looked through the trees? Please answer these questions when class takes up again. Thanks, you have done a good job at doing that much. I have my doubts about you being able to offer any details of anything pertaining to the matter we have been going back and forth on. I did not know Ed as a "buddy", but rather as a researcher who went to him and requested information from him, I interviewed him, I spoke at length with him by way of his daughter, and I had Tony Cummings film the entire event. A few times since that day I have met Ed for a moment and said hello in passing. What I have reported has been from my own investigation and not from any "buddy" relationship that you think I may have had with him. Could you please cite where Holland said that he could not get down the fence line and was forced to take the path of least resistance?

Thanks for pointing out my error. I was multitasking here and butchered that name all to pieces. It should have read (Adlai Stevenson). Also, about the 267 yards to the Hoffman location that Miles keeps harping about. I am reminded that this distance is a par 4 on a golf course and the flag and pole can be seen when teeing off. Do you care to acknowledge the hand now and feel free to explain why is looks so large compared to the people standing near the Moorman location.

Find just one art instructor, professional photographer, or even a physics instructor who will say that same sized people seen at various distances in a photograph will be seen as the same size when cropped and moved up next to those closer to the camera and we can end all this nonsense - just one!!! As Adlai Ewing Stevenson said to the Russians ... "I am prepared to wait until hell freezes over". Once again I remind you of the image posted of the stand-in shooter and how the further away the people are from the camera - the smaller they become on film. So much so do they get smaller on film that the shooter's hand is as big as the people standing near the Moorman location. Do you care to acknowledge that observation or do you prefer to ignore it some more? Here is another example - Jackie's head is closer to the camera than JFK's head, thus hers looks larger. JFK's head is closer to the camera, thus his head is bigger than the peoples heads in the background. It's the way things work and there is no amount of pretending to be dumb about it going to change the way things work in the universe. BTW, the reason Zapruder didn't film the guys on the steps (other than the back of Hudson's head) was because his camera was zoomed past them from an elevated view. Moorman's camera was not. Bill

Miles, please explain in more detail if you can. If the lanes all run to a vanishing point, then the distant object takes up no less than 5 to 6 lanes in width, thus it is not the same size as the closer objec which fits into one lane. If the pegs are all the same height, then the distant object is also taller than the closer object. Illusions can be created by leaving out certain data. However, the photo of the knoll is real and the laws of perspective are in play regardless of how you wish they were not. I also invite you to discuss these illustrations, along with the text, with someone experienced in 'perspective' such as an art instructor. You can probably accomplish this by not even having to leave your chair by emailing it to them. As far as what Ed could and couldn't see from such a distance - I have been there and seen it for myself. What Ed described could have been seen and those who have also been there know this. Whether Ed mistook a broom handle for a gun - we can debate that, but seeing someone with a long object in their hands from that distance is possible for I can do it and I do not have 20/20 vision or the increased senses a person with such a handicap as Ed would have had. as I said before - I could see the passengers of the vehicles traveling along Stemmons Freeway and I could tell if they were a man or a woman and whether they were dark headed or light haired. I find it quite frustrating to have to respond to someone like yourself with actual first hand knowledge of being there, while you have not stated that you also have gone to the scene and verified this matter one way or the other. In some ways you help my position for it shows the lack of effort people like yourself have put into your so-called search for the truth in JFK's assassination. Bill

Lee, that facial overlay showing the two different hairline patterns over the forehead of Lee and Billy was well done and most effective IMO. Bill

Duncan, it is little wonder that some of you guys, especially you, get so worked up over your observations being called into question because you try so desperately to keep from admitting your error that you only hear what you want despite it not being what was said. Here you have done it once again and have posted a response that has nothing to do with reality. For example: I am highlighting in bold print what you have said and I will follow-up with the same as to what was really said in my post. What Duncan hears: "Yes is the answer I was expecting. You have been beating about the bush like a headless turkey with selective analysis, eg you stated that Zapruder is at the same distance from the camera as the men on the steps are. That's wrong for a start. If he was at the same distance, then the Zapruder frames would have captured a sideview of the man on the steps head. We see a view from behind which proves my point." Now this is what I really said as can be read in response #91, #92, #96, and #97 .... "And just so you know .... From where Moorman was standing, the men on the steps were closer to her camera than what Zapruder and Sitzman were as they stood on a pedestal atop of the knoll. If you thought the steps were further from her camera than the pedestal was, then you are mistaken." So the fact is that you either do not want to (or cannot) follow what is being told to you. Two of those numbered post were yours where you got it right by pasting my exact words in your response. Now you get it totally wrong! Why is that??? Would you now like to retract that nonsense or would you prefer to say that someone must have altered the type in all those responses? Again you misstate the facts. The outline of the head your drew is what I said is roughly the same size as Hudson's head ... not that the outline of the head you drew is the same size as "HUDSON" ... there is a difference and the examples of my placing the two heads together should have told you exactly what I was implying. As far as everyone believing that the shooter is far smaller than Hudson goes - you have been the only person still saying it. If it is your contention that the hat worn by Hat Man is as big as Hudson's head or any of the men next to him, then I have to assume that you didn't even bother to examine it before making the inference. The image speaks for itself and is exactly what I would expect given the increased distance to the Hat Man's location from where Moorman took her photograph from.

The answer is "YES" in the case where someone like yourself has picked a spot that is so much further away from the camera that the outline you have given for this subject is as big as the peoples heads who are only half the distance from the camera. I do not know how to make it any simpler than what I have done so far. Had your alleged outline of the floating cops head been 15 to 20 % the size of Hudson's head, then you would still be in the ball game, but it isn't. For your alleged cop head to be viewed as real, then one needs to consider the greater distance it is from the camera and then apply the same increased ratio of perspective change to its size to see how it would compare to someone like Hudson if they were standing next to each other. I am telling you what any knowledgeable person who understands perspective would say and that is if your alleged cop head is roughly the same size as a persons head who is half the distance to the camera, then it is too big to be real for the reasons I have previously stated. Maybe instead of debating me - go to a local school and take that image to an art teacher with the text I have given you and see if what I have said isn't so. It would be no different than someone showing me one of the faces on a distant Mt. Rushmore and saying that because it is about the same size as someone's face in front of the camera in the foreground, then the face could be considered real. You have failed to take into consideration the increased distance from the camera in your dealing with Moorman's photo. If you back to the example in post #97, you could crop the distant black line and move it up to the closer black line to see they are the exact same size. What is wrong with that is that in real life they are supposed to be the same size, so when one is seen much further down the fence line it should be much smaller ... not seen as the same size as the closer one. If this one simple premise ever gets through to you, then everything else I have said will fall into place. Bill

Both points you mentioned in your response revolve around a science that you refuse to recognize. Personally, I believe that you do understand 'perspective' and that you understood the simple fence illustration I created to show how things in an image must work off of a "vanishing point". After all, you surely were not serious when you mentioned Picasso's paintings. Even if you didn't understand the matter of perspective - the picture showing the shooters hand being about the size of the people seen at a distance is pretty obvious and telling in itself. It is the same rule that makes the hand appear to be near the size of the people across the street that applies to your flawed conclusion that a floating torso is shooting at the President. It was because the head of the figure you outlined is nearly the same size as peoples heads, if not the same size or larger, is why I mentioned 'perspective' in the first place. One must be careful pretending not to understand the basics so to try and preserve a flawed position for it could lead to not having any credibility in any future discussions of the same. In the above example for instance - If you were to tell me that the #2 line was an accurate scaling of the #1 line, then I would have to point out that the rule of 'perspective' does not agree with you. The greater distance the fence and the trees are from the camera, then the smaller their ratio to one another becomes. A simple test to show what is wrong with the image would be to crop the one black line and place it next to the other. One should find a dramatic difference in their sizes just as the hand of the shooter looked nearly as big as the people across the street. If the two lines are still the same size or vary slightly in their ratio when the distance to each is greater, then something is terribly worng and that is why I haved pointed out what I believe to be an obvious error in your idea that there is a shooter seen at the location you believe this individual to be. Bill

It should also be up to the reader to know the facts before blowing off their big mouth as you did about the cancer I had mentioned. After all, you wanted to know about the real Bill Miller and the phone books are full of them, so what better way to weed out the right one by offering an armchair researcher these extra details - RIGHT? If you did nothing else, you showed this forum that you are not capable of deciding anything by way of reasonable careful thought because your mouth is always moving faster than your brain. By the way, you are posting about Hoffman in the wrong thread. However, is there anything about the Duncan shooter that you'd like to discuss, just let me know. Any thoughts about the points pertaining to the size problem that has been raised? Anything you'd like to add about "perspective" and how it works? Bill

Now your trolling like Scull did by trying to avoid the point being made. Regardless of who or what created the universe - it all functions on a set of principles that we must live by. You must be joking at this point. A photo, as with an artist drawing, is a 2D image. It is the rule of depth/perspective within the image that we are forced to live by. This is all stuff that a beginner in art class is taught and even if you have not ever drawn a picture or had an art class, you surely have the ability to understand the rule of "perpsective" and how and why it must be followed. I might also add that if one is going to attempt to try and understand the photographical record in the JFK assassination at all - they should at least understand such simple basic rules like 'perspective' so to be able to test their own observations. At this point I should not have to be pointing out things we should have been taught in elementary school.

Duncan, "perspective" is a rule of physics that artist have to live by - God created the universe - how and why things work like they do should be taken up with him. And just so you know .... From where Moorman was standing, the men on the steps were closer to her camera than what Zapruder and Sitzman were as they stood on a pedestal atop of the knoll. If you thought the steps were further from her camera than the pedestal was, then you are mistaken. Compare the size of the people near the Moorman location to the size of the hand of the man holding the rifle looking back the other way. (see example) This same rule applies to your alleged claim. Your alleged shooter is even further from Moorman's location than what the Hat Man was in the demo recreation photo above. Do you even have any idea as to how many 'fence slats' it would take to equal the width of the alleged shooting cops head if you were correct ... I was under the impression that because your responses have slowed down considerably that possibly you had finally seen what I have been trying to tell you all along. Note how alike motorcycles get smaller the further away from Moorman's camera they are. See how William Newman seen across the street in Moorman's photo is larger than the men on the steps ... just as the men on the steps are larger than the people on the pedestal. It's all in the rule of 'perspective' as to how the ratio of similar sized objects will become smaller to the eye the further away they are. Bill

A ridiculous attempt to curry favor from a gullible membership, al la the WC, and par for the course for a closet xxxxx! I call you a xxxx. Now, let's see the verified, authenticated medical reports. If you do not produce the same, then all of the moderators will ask why. They will want to censure me. But they cannot do so without proof. The net, the dragnet, is closing in on a stupid xxxxx. The case is now before the Public & the membership. We shall see. Mr. Scull, I cannot believe you said this. The Forum Rules do not allow for anyone to be called a xxxx. You are warned to stop this immediately. Kathy Beckett iiv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum. Kathy, I told you this guy is nothing more than a forum xxxxx. He has had the chance several times now to address the Duncan photo illustration after I pointed out the sizing problem and yet he now trails off about wanting to see my medical records. Most researchers who know me also know all about my past illness. I have been in remission for 14 years now, thus there is no special preferences due to me. If he wants to know more about my past battles with cancer ... he can get the records from the Peoria, Illinois Court House for an injury resulting from the chemotherapy resulted in a litigation. I won that case against Proctor Hospital and all legal books carry a summary of the cases tried in that particular state. All my attending doctors are part of that record. This will mean that he will actually have to spend a dollar to call the court house there and probably a few dollars to get a copy of the case and trolls don't seem to care to do any research of their own. Now about that sizing problem with Duncan's alleged assassin .... does Scull care to address it or does he have more foolishness to demonstrate for our amusement? Bill

I have three seconds to spare ... supposed you tell me all you know on the subject. How did you derive at such a conclusion. Someone sitting or leaning on the hood of the car could have placed one or both of their muddy shoes on the bumper of the car. There is no photographic evidence or witness statements saying that they saw anyone standing on the bumper of the car. If you do know something that I do not, then by all means share it with the forum. I look forward to what you have to share. I believe that the DCA film does show cars throughout the RR yard and one could refer to them as a "sea of cars', but it is still just a figure of speech. The photos and films taken of the RR yard would be the best and most precise evidence IMO. Holland gives a strong impression? Holland also said Connally was driven down into the floor of the limo, but that too was a figure of speech because that is the way Holland talked. As far as his being in a hurry - the photographic record does not support this any more than Holland saying it took him two minutes to get into the RR yard. Two minutes to get into the RR yard might be shagging ass if you were a snail, but hardly a hurry to a thin human being who seemed to have two good legs. If I am trolling - I do it with illustrations and actual assassination photographs and clips to support my position. I am finding it difficult to see what you are offering in the way of factual evidence to support your responses. Instead you get off topic rather than to address the points being made. Now getting back to the topic of the thread .......... Having seen Duncan's drawing and the points I made about perspective and how that applies to Hudson, do you have anything to say considering you were earlier praising Duncan's claim when the thread started?

Well said, Ken. If people like Scull, if that is who he really is, would spend a fraction of the time he waste trolling the forum and would actually read all the evidence before posting, then perhaps one could at least take him seriously rather than just some kook looking for attention.

'Who is Bill Miller?' http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6156 Pat Speer: Jack, I sat next to Bill Miller at the Lancer Conference. He's the red-haired fellow. While he spends much of his energy defending the authenticity of the Zapruder film, I'm almost certain he believes the autopsy photos were faked and/or the body was changed. Dave Curbow: Bill Miller as represented here by himself and others that know him is Bill Miller. He is passionate about the Kennedy assassination and his work concerning it. He believes in a conspiracy, but he also believes that shoddy work is unacceptable and will try to expose that just as he works to expose the conspiracy angle. I respect him for that; he shares that trait with Dave Perry, another man who has earned my respect. I have had many converstations with Bill and have found him generous to a fault. I have appreciated the exchanges with him and how he has challenged me to think. Cantankerous, yes, but also determined, diligent, and for my overvalued two cents, what a researcher should be: one who searches for the truth, and one when finding dead ends, just as passionately rejects those, and carefully states why. Accept or reject what Bill proposes, but casting aspersions on who he is simply fishing a dry lake. John Simkin: I also met Bill Miller at the JFK Lancer conference in November. He is who he says he is. What is more, his presentation was one of the best at the conference. Other serious well known researchers that I have gotten to know over the years and/or to work with are ... Robert Groden, Debra Conway, Larry Hancock, Gary Murr, Mark Oakes, Gary Mack, and the list goes on. I have logged hundreds of hours in Dealey Plaza in an effort to better understand the photographical record pertaining to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I have spoken at two Lancer conferences and have proudly accepted 'The Mary Ferrell - JFK Lancer New Frontier Award' for the discovery of new evidence in the assassination of JFK. I have donated several items pertaining to the assassination, not to mention the same to other researchers. I am of a select few who ever bothers to actually contact the Museum on a regular basis in an effort to stay on top of the vast amount of evidence stored there related to President Kennedy's murder. My Bio had been previously posted on this forum, but was removed after this forum had been hacked into. I will place a link to this thread onto my Bio page for those who are concerned about who I am. For those who feel they need to know more about me ... I like trying new foods, playing the guitar, watching Seinfeld, enjoy fishing, reading, hiking, and vacationing in the mountains of the Pacific Northwest. I'm against the killing of animals for sport. I am 49 years of age and my favorite color is red. I have survived two separate bouts with cancer and have survived a severe car accident that left me with some disability. My dislikes are reading post written by armchair researcher/critics who do little to nothing in actually contributing anything to the facts of the case of John Kennedy's murder and instead spend a considerable amount of time trolling in an effort to disrupt a thread. For those who still want to know more about me ... get a life! The real Bill Miller

Slander: Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. No one needs to attempt to slander you - your replies do it for them. Now you have seen the images I posted in post #76 ... do you have any thing to add one way or another to what I have stated? I have had several private responses from Kathy and I have not gotten the impression that you have attributed to her. It has been written, "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.” Rene Dahinden, August 1999.

Miles, your argument isn't with me, but rather with the photos and films showing the RR yard immediately after the assassination. You can start with the photo of the butts laying on the ground between the car and the fence. That is not to say that there were not cars parked close to one another, but he didn't say they were butted up against the stockade fence. You seem to like to argue about things that you really have no knowledge of ... first take the time to view as much of the photographical record as possible and then base your opinions on what you have seen and not on what you think you know. If Holland said there was 30 to 50 people in the area by the time he got there, then how would he know the assassin from the many others he saw? Please try and give a rational and sensible answer. Bill

Your are technically correct ... your outline of a cops head IS at least 1/3 as big as Hudson's. 1/2 to 2/3s as big would also fall within your reply which says "AT LEAST" as big as something else. If you go back to the other example photo you used that looks back the other way ... the peoples bodies seen below are smaller than the shooter's head. So when you fudge it a little and say that the outline is 1/3 as big as Hudson's head, then you are still so far off the mark that you cannot possibly do the damage control needed to try and save your flawed allegation. The Duncan outline Below is the view showing how far down the fence the Duncan drawing is located. This can be done by counting the trees in the various assassination images. I will let the photos speak for themselves. The perpendicular view shows the true distance between Hudson and the location in question.

Duke, you're completely right! Speaking of bullxxxx, notice a powerful signature barnyard odor in the Hoffman docs cited below? (This is just the tip of the iceberg. Thought I'd save you from death by stench asphyxiation.) Okay, let's see if we can trace this according to these documents: Here, Hoffman is parked "near the railroad tracks on Stemmons Freeway and Elm Street," which seems to suggest that he is parked on the side of the freeway closest to the tracks, i.e., the east side nearest TSBD. This differs from his physical description - that is, the one he took us to physically! - as being on the side nearest the entrance ramp, from which he claimed (as I remember it) to see not only men in DP, but also the limo as it sped by on its way to Parkland. (I seem to remember him relating the story of SA Hickey and the AR-15, too, and how scared of being shot he'd been!) It is confusing exactly where he's claiming to have parked since there's no place that can be called "Stemmons Freeway and Elm Street" that can be sited in conjunction with "the railroad tracks on Stemmons Freeway." The former would place him on the bridge over the northernmost portion of the road that comes west out from the Triple Underpass (i.e., "Stemmons Freeway and Elm Street"), but there are no railroad tracks "on Stemmons Freeway" until one goes north on Stemmons from Elm some 350-375 feet (ahem! 365.76 feet by Google Earth!). So basically he could have been anywhere at all within about a 500 foot area, according to this report. Most notably, however, he says that "he sbserved two white males ... running from the rear of the Texas School Book Depository building." This is very clearly a different place than "behind the picket fence." Oops: he couldn't see what he'd told them he saw! Omigosh! Well, might as well give up a detailed description of "suit man" and "railroad worker man" and their several actions, but because those Feebies aren't among the brightest graduates of law school, best to keep it simple: one had on a white shirt. This leaves plenty of wiggle room given that men in suits often wear white shirts, and there's no description of "railroad worker man" at all, meaning he simply didn't describe him at the time, nothing more or less. Probably because the feds didn't ask. Oh, that sibling rivalry ... and a jealous dad, too! Haven't they ever seen that look of wide-eyed sincerity Hoffman exhibits on the knoll these days? How could they have doubted him? No mention here about needing to fear for his life or any such thing (which the Feebs would have gladly recorded to show what a "kook" these folks were!), just that he "has in the past distorted facts of events observed by him," and that young Ed's own depictions to them included that "he saw numerous men running" after the shooting, and that Dad "did not believe that his son had seen anything of value" and "doubted he had observed any men running from the Texas School Book Depository" at all! Ah, the difference a few years can make! Hoffman has now moved from the side of the highway "near the railroad tracks on Stemmons Freeway and Elm Street ... standing a few feet south of the railroad on Stemmons Freeway" to the west side of the highway, that is, all the way across seven lanes of traffic! Doesn't this seem a strange thing to do when one has a half-hour to wait before the Presidential motorcade even entered Dealey Plaza (Hoffman had originally said he "parked his automobile ... [at] about 12:00 noon on November 22, 1963")? With all that time, why even park on the highway when he could have driving all through downtown and gone directly into DP in plenty of time to see JFK up close and personal? Remembering also that police stopped traffic prior to the motorcade's expected arrival for security purposes, it strains credulity to imagine that not a one of them approached Hoffman, whichever side of the highway he was on, and told him to get his ass away from the path of the motorcade! That they may have, but decided to let him remain, is unlikely based upon the fact that Hoffman could neither hear the officers to be able to respond to their queries, nor speak to them to tell them that he was "okay" and that he was just watching for the President to come along in half an hour or so. Half an hour! Hardly spur-of-the-moment, eh? Note also that "railroad worker man" was also "wearing a tie" with his "striped overalls!" Must've been one of those "working executive" types, huh? But at least we now know that he parked "on the west shoulder of Stemmons Freeway at the northbound lane near the Texas and Pacific Railroad overpass that crosses Stemmons Freeway" and waited 30 minutes to see the President speed by when he could've walked over to TSBD and seen him go by at "parade speed!" Buddy, there ain't NO line of sight from there into the railroad yards, some 200 yards away! He has at least surmounted the problem of not being able to see two six-foot-tall men running from the back of the TSBD behind a six-foot fence - that he'd admitted that he couldn't see past - by simply putting them on the side of the fence nearer to him! One wonders if brother Fred or any of the others with whom ol' Ed shared his fabri— his experiences with is still around, and what they thing of young Virgil's sudden and lasting notoriety .... Read Ed's book which rebuts such allegations.

I love it when you guys write stuff that isn't what the evidence you use shows it to be. You outlined what you called a cops head/hat/ what ever. The distance of that location is much further from Moorman's camera than Hudson is .... maybe almost twice the distance. When the hat that YOU OUTLINED is moved down to Hudson's position - Emmett's head fits within your outline. Despite you merely saying otherwise - the image itself shows what you have outlined of an alleged individual's head, seen much further from the camera, is every bit (if not bigger) than Hudson's head. Now having pointed out this simple observation numerous times ... maybe you can tell this forum why that is if this person is real as you have alleged? Maybe to better show your outline - maybe post the larger version so everyone can see what I am talking about. Bill