Bill Miller

Duncan, you are not using the sharper Moorman image ... that is obvious from the wide view image you have posted. I posted an animated overlay showing the difference ... the proof is in the image itself. I still await for your image with the outline drawn onto it so we can move on. Bill

You must be reading Jack's old post. I take it that you didn't research the thread far enough to see where John Simkin posted that I am who I say I am for he has met me. Or you can buy one of Lancer's conference CD's and see me in action. The real Bill Miller

I agree ... it will not increase the size. However, it will show that what you think you see at that section of the fence is as big on film as Hudson's upper torso and head who is much closer to Moorman's camera ... and that is the point about perspective that I made. I look forward to your posting of the outline and I will be happy to take it from there. remember the hat and face you drew over this area - I do. I kept that image, but do not have it on my laptop, but if you cannot produce it ... I will find it eventually and post it for you. Bill

Duncan - what you say simply is not true. You once posted that area with the "OUTLINE" drawn over your subject ... you failed to use that outline in your example. Please go back and use your outline version and we will see what is and is not garbage. Thanks! BTW, here is a comparison for sharpness using a section of the Moorman image Groden and Thomspon used Vs. the drum scan you have rested your hat on. There can be no comparison in the sharpness between the two. Bill

It is little wonder that you make the errors that you do. Just so you know ... ignorance is not a defense. Here is what I said ... "This alleged floating cop torso has been outlined to the size of Hudson and the guys on the steps despite it being much further from the camera." It appears that you have not a clue as to how much further down the fence this alleged floating cop torso of yours is. I even used the view looking back the other way and asked if you could see the problem pertaining to the size issue in what you allege to be a person. It is obvious that you do not understand perspective. The simple illustration that even a beginning art student is taught about deals with perspective. The distance down the fence that Duncan is saying he sees a human head and torso is roughly the same size as the individuals seen on the steps and they are much closer to Moorman's camera. This can be verified by cropping out Duncan's alleged figure and moving it to Hudson's location. Duncan has been shown his error in the past, but refuses to accept the laws of 'perspective' when it comes to distance. This illustration is for those who have had beginners art or are intelligent enough to understand such a simple rule of physics. The red heads show how dramatically the same head should DECREASE in size as it is moved further from the camera. If the head stays the same size, then the further away head cannot be what Duncan believes it to be for it is too large to be a real person. Bill Miller

Once again I would be interested to see who among you could pass a lie detector test asking if you are merely a xxxxx. Holland said it took about 2 minutes before he and the others got to the place where he had heard the shot near the fence. The assassination images support Holland's estimate. The 'sea of cars' phrase was a figure of speech. In fact, the photos of the cigarette butts on the ground and the footprints in the mud showed plenty of room between the car and the fence, but hopefully your posting a photo non-related to the day of the assassination will serve its purpose by fooling at least some of the people who reads your replies. Bill Miller

This is what I see Eugene. A man with a policeman's hat which I have outlined, aiming a rifle at Kennedy. I've colorised the face. The badge on the cap can be seen clearer on your enhancement. Where is the consideration for perspective such as how things get much smaller the further the distance is from the camera? This alleged floating cop torso has been outlined to the size of Hudson and the guys on the steps despite it being much further from the camera. This fact alone should tell a half intelligent person that no matter what they think they see - its too damned big to be someone at the fence when seen at that distance from Moorman's camera. In post #51 .... note the capture of the stand-in shooter from the fence to the people below .... do they not appear much smaller just as "perspective" would dictate. But considering that some of you don't think in the realm of the real physical world, then don't let common physics stop you from appearing inept at photo interpretation. The next thing I expect you guys to be doing is trying to make a case for the faces seen on Mt. Rushmore as being real people. (sigh~) Bill Miller

I am curious ... nothing you said in this post hinted as to why you didn't believe Ed Hoffman ... why? Who was there to assist in the interpreting? You are correct. Did you know that Arnold moved away from everyone at that interview and broke down a cried. Like Ed, Gordon is another one who told of his experience immediately following the assassination and because people didn't hear about Gordon's story until 15 years later ... some of them choose not to believe what he had to say. Bill

See the capture in response 31 and 32.

Would adding a comma help? "I can see you thinking Miles made some good points, for you have never been to the site to know any better." Like with most critics ... I find that none of them have been to the site to know if what they say is true and correct, they have never researched the witness to see if their story has remained the same from day one, nor do they know what all has really been done to properly investigate the veracity of the witness. Instead we see arm chair researchers sitting back on their asses and not doing anything but citing untruths because they want to pretend to have this great interest in knowing the truth about JFK's murder just so long as they don't have to actually invest anything in finding out what it is. Who among you can say whether or not Ed Hoffman has ever volunteered to take a lie detector test in an effort to prove that what he has said is true? Who among you have ever met with Ed's family and friends to better understand how some of the discrepencies in what he has been alleged to say from time to time had come about? To offer an example ... we see some moron try to make a case for a sign allegedly blocking Ed's view from even being able to see into the RR yard at the time of the assassination because of a sign that was in place at the time this person finally visited the plaza. This genius had never bothered to look at any of the assassination images so to know the sign was not a factor on the day JFK was killed, but who bothers with dtails when you're a critic - right! How many of you arm chair researchers know that Ed has a poor vocabulary which inhibits his ability to get the points across that he wishes to make? How many of you have considered what this must be like when other interpreters have tried to understand Ed. I witnessed first hand Ed's difficulty and frustration with even trying to communicate things to his daughter who has been used to her father's disability all her life. What would be interesting would be to see how many of you arm chair critic/researchers are actually here because you really believe you are searching for the truth. Anyone up for the same lie detector test that Ed has volutered to take? Bill Miller

I had a B&W copy of the Nix film given to me on the actual film spool and Robert and I took it to a Lab, along with his best color copy of the Nix film said to be made from the original, and the Lab was unable to pull much details out of either film. However, they did get it lightened enough to see that someone was standing where Gordon Arnold was said to be standing and he did move to his left immediately after the President was fatally shot. It was my hopes to see if the figure dove to the ground as Arnold said he did and as supported by Ralph Yarborough. The figure definetly was in motion, but that is all we could see. Bill

Thanks, Robin. This is what I wanted James to see so he wouldn't think that Lovelady had his shirt buttoned all the way up because of a misleading side view. It only takes one false assumption to lead one on a trail that goes nowhere. Bill

In other words Groden altered the picture. And then, if he was last to have it, he loses the original film. So we see Jackie's pink pillbox hat but nothing of the Grassy Knoll. Real smart. Kathy Kathy, Without knowing more of the facts - I can see you feeling that way. I believe that it was UPI who had the original Nix film at the time and they had Groden come and work with making a color copy that would make the colors more pleasing to those who would see the film from that point on. Robert did what he was supposed to do. But Robert also wanted to use the original Nix film to make a lightened copy print so to see into the deep shadows on the walkway and it was UPI who refused to allow him to do it. Their position was that he was to do a particular job and nothing more. There was simply nothing Robert could do for he has told me that UPI watched over him the entire time which prevented him from being able to secretly make the lightened copy print. The losing of the camera Nix original falls on UPI - not Groden. Bill

Miles, Have you ever been to Dealey Plaza and seen Ed's view for yourself? Can you tell the members of this forum what you know as to when Ed first told anyone what he had witnessed from atop of that Freeway? Can you also correct your LOS to show the view Ed would have had to the RR boxes because if you do that, then you might better understand why it looked like the man went behind the RR box from where Ed stood. I would also like to hear from you a logical explanation as to why you keep calling the Hat Man a midget, so please enlighten us? ( see illustration below) Bill

Ed Hoffman was specific about the hat. In the MWKK interview ... Ed demonstrated how the guy straightened his coat and adjusted his hat as he walked east along the fence. Bill _________________________________ Thanks again, Bill. To your knowledge, were there any other eyewitnesses besides Ed Hoffman who saw a shooter, wearing a hat, standing behind the fence at the time of the shooting (or immediately after it)? Just curious. Thanks, --Thomas _________________________________ "...beside Ed Hoffman...?" Exactly. That's the issue, because if Ed Hoffman is shown to be a false witness, then Midget Man (AKA Hatman) is shown to be a concocted phantom. Correcting a former error of mine, see this aerial with a yellow line showing Ed's alleged line of sight: This line of sight is 267.02 yards long, more than 2 1/2 football fields. The line of sight traverses (goes through) a seven (7) lane highway which at the time in question is busily traveled be cars & eighteen wheelers, etc. This line of sight should be kept in mind when considering Ed's story because at this distance Ed's ability to identify the details presented in his story becomes extremely dubious. Just taking one example out of a dozen Hoffman problems, consider that Ed says that "I (he) saw a puff of smoke. I thought it was a cigarette, but it wasn't , he had a gun." To an uncritical audience this sounds plausible. But, remember the 267 yard line of sight. As Ed is saying this he is standing by the picket fence aiming, by pantomime, an imaginary rifle over the fence at Elm. But, there's a problem. In Ed's pantomime Ed imitates what he saw his alleged sniper do by shouldering the imaginary rifle to his LEFT shoulder! Yes, that's right, Ed's sniper (a lefty ), as seen by Ed at a distance of 267 yards, had, as Ed pantomimes, his BACK toward Ed. Now, at this exact moment Ed sees a puff of smoke, again as Ed pantomimes to illustrate (using his hands), puff up beside of the alleged sniper's head but on the side of the sniper's head away from Ed. The obvious implication that Ed is at pains to make clear is that this puff of smoke emanated from the rifle at the rifle's chamber & not from the barrel in propulsion. What? The wind at the time was blowing south. Ed says only one shot was fired. Did Ed's sniper eject the casing instantly after firing? Ed does not mention the sniper or anyone else running to retrieve the ejected casing so it would not be found by the police (as it was, indeed, not found)... Well, this just one (typical) example of Ed's dog not hunting. One other point. Here's a photo crop which illustrates that Ed's sniper's assistant would have been observed (as he was not, of course) by people standing a few feet away from the electrical box where Ed claims the assistant broke down the rifle & put it in a tool box. The red arrows indicate where individual spectators were standing as the limo went through the underpass. (left arrow probable, right certain) They would have seen the apocryphal rifle toss over the steam pipe. They did not see this, of course. The most embarrassing aspect of Ed's story is the gross & stark implausibility of the "rifle toss" canard. Ed's story is that the assassin fires a shot from behind the picket fence from a spot near hatman; that the assassin then walks west down along the fence toward the elevated (3') steamline pipe at the north end of the triple underpass; that the assassin tosses his rifle to an assistant, possibly tossing it over the steamline pipe; that the assistant then proceeds to the northern most of two switch boxes to disassemble the rifle to put it in a bag; and, finally, both assassin & assistant then casually walk away unseen. Sound good? Unfortunately there's a massive problem here. In the Bell film two men can be seen at the north wall of the triple underpass, the wall that runs from the underpass to connect with the western end of the picket fence. These two men are seen at this wall as the limo goes through the underpass on the way to Parkland. These two men are, therefore, standing, at the critical time, about 15 feet (!!) away from the switch box where Ed's "assistant" breaks down the rifle. Since there are zero bushes or trees in this area, this means that the two men could have & would have SEEN the assassin toss the rifle to the assistant & would have SEEN the assistant carrying the rifle to the switch box, breaking it down & carrying it away in a bag. It is possible that Ed's "rifle toss" occurred before the assassin reached the steamline pipe; if so, then, the assistant would have had to have jumped over the 3' steamline pipe or to have ducked under it, while carrying the rifle. What makes this whole scenario laughably implausible is the consideration that the assassin is executing a plan of escape that is, in its conception, the exact oppose of a plan designed to succeed. The assassin & his assistant walk to where there is an extremely high likelihood that they will be seen, and seen by any number of witnesses who are in the area of the switch boxes to view the motorcade. In other words, the assassin & his advisers, realizing the dangers, would have first of all have ruled out Ed's scenario as being the worst possible exit strategy, the one plan most likely to fail, the one plan most likely to expose the assassin. Conclusion: Ed's dog don't hunt.

I can see you thinking Miles made some good points for you have never been to the site to know any better. Bill

Miles, As I walked the RR yard with Ed and his family one day - I looked at the lane of traffic passing by on Stemmon's Freeway and I do not have the keen eyesight that Ed had as a man with a loss of one of his senses ... and I could clearly see people with clarity through their opened car windows so to tell if they were a woman or a man ... even what color hair they had. You might want to hold on to your comments until you actually have been to Dealey Plaza and seen it for yourself. Allow me to give you an example that you might possibly understand as to ones ability to see from the distance you claim Ed had. The Daniels camera, as with most cameras, doesn't show the detail that the naked eye sees and in fact, it makes things look slighty further away than they really are. Now when watching the Daniels film, do you not see the people on the south pasture well enough to have seen one of them holding a rifle if that had been the case? Now add the clarity that the naked eye sees with ... Get the point! I assume that you are merely trying to play the devils advocate and aren't really as sllly as your response sounds to someone who knows Ed's story quite well and has walked every inch of the areas in question. Ed had seen the guy smoking a cigarette while waiting for the motorcade to show up. Proof of this could be the numerous cigarette butts that were found on the ground after the RR employees got to the location where they had heard the shot and had seen the smoke come through the trees ... of course, unless you think the man at the fence had all those cigarettes in his mouth at one time and was smoking them as JFK approached. Does it really matter how the smoke got out of the gun ... its the same smoke Bowers told Mark Lane about and the same smoke seen being blown through the trees by assassination witnesses on the underpass and on the knoll. By the way ... look at Muchmore's film and take note at which direction Moorman and Hill's coats are blowing. If you are going to be a critic of witnesses, then the information that you are offering should at least be correct. the wind was blowing to the southeast at the time JFK was killed. And what rule says that a shooter has to take the time to eject a shell out of his gun and risk losing precious time in going undetected? Are you also aware of the smell of fresh burnt gunpowder being detected near the fence and in the street as the motorcade passed by below. The 6th floor of the TSBD was 6 stories in the air and a block east of the knoll, so unless the wind blew that gunpowder smell from the alleged snipers nest and carried it all around the world so to end up in front of the knoll ... it would appear to a reasonable person that a shot was fired from the RR yard near the fence. You should also know that Hoffman didn't know the man had a gun until he turned around. Also, Seymour Weitzman's report told of talking to a RR worker who told him that after the shooting that he had seen someone toss something near the steam pipe. the worker had seen this through an opening in the tree foliage. This supports what Hoffman has said from his own observations. And if you should ever bother to actually visit the triple underpass - you will be forced to see that anyone standing on it as the people seen in Altgens 7, then you will find that you cannot see the area near the RR boxes. One more thing you seem oblivious to ... Ed saw a man go behind the RR box to dismantle the gun. Ed is talking about the man going out of sight behind the box from where he stood ... this does not mean that the man actually made it all the way to the RR box so to be seen by anyone on the underpass ... not that this was possible. See Weitzman's report ... maybe someone tossed a broom to another employee and told him to get down there in the street and clean up that mess ... sigh~ ... the point is that someone besides Ed saw something tossed near the steam pipe.

Feel free to contact Robert, yourself and then it is no longer hearsay. Contact Trask who has seen the original photo ... or Mack ... or better yet - go see the photo for yourself, but of course to do any of these things would only move you closer to having to admit that your interpretation sucked and your lack of interest in doing so to date tells the true story in itself IMO. I would certainly like to see how Janowitz was able to show the sky between the floating torso and the top of the fence in his recreation image ... I am betting that it didn't happen. Hat Man is the only person seen at this location at the time the shot was heard from there, so what else shot at JFK which caused the smoke to be propelled through the trees? Try to keep in mind that Moorman took her photo AFTER the kill shot - not at the precise moment. Anyone standing a foot or two from the fence with Moorman looking uphill would look just like what is seen in Moorman's photo. Hoffman is the eye witness to seeing this man with a gun. Holland and the others on the underpass heard the shot and seen the smoke. Bowers told Lane that something unusual happened there ... like a flash of light or smoke was visible. Now how far can one move in 4/18ths of a second ... count off four frames of Toni Foster walking or Jackie rising up from the car while bringing her hand over her husband's head and we'll apply that to your opinion. You blew two words in the quote above. But getting back on point ... you are posting garbage that the original Moorman photo doesn't show and that is and always will be your biggest obstacle to overcome.

Ed Hoffman was specific about the hat. In the MWKK interview ... Ed demonstrated how the guy straightened his coat and adjusted his hat as he walked east along the fence. The head seen in the Zapruder film is Emmett Hudson's as Emmett stood on the steps going from the walkway above the knoll and leading down to the street. Bill _________________________________ Thanks again, Bill. To your knowledge, were there any other eyewitnesses besides Ed Hoffman who saw a shooter, wearing a hat, standing behind the fence at the time of the shooting (or immediately after it)? Just curious. Thanks, --Thomas _________________________________ The answer would be yes, someone besides Hoffman saw the man with the hat. Bowers was one such witness even though he failed to specifically mention the hat. Why do I say this? Because Bowers said that there were only TWO men along that portion of the fence when the President passed by below. One man stood back while the other man was up by the fence looking up the street at the approaching motorcade. The Willis enlargement in Groden's book shows this individual over the corner of the fence (and along the west stretch of fence) with the sky as a backdrop and he is quite clearly wearing something on his head that could be considered the same hat seen over the top of the fence at the Hat Man location in Moorman's photo. So Bowers substantiates the presence of this man in photos through his statements, while the two photos support Hoffman's description about tha man wearing a hat .... see how they all tie in together! Bill

Ed Hoffman was specific about the hat. In the MWKK interview ... Ed demonstrated how the guy straightened his coat and adjusted his hat as he walked east along the fence. The head seen in the Zapruder film is Emmett Hudson's as Emmett stood on the steps going from the walkway above the knoll and leading down to the street. Bill

For once I agree with you, Duncan ... you did not state the obvious about the fuzziness of the drum scan - I did! Further more, I wasn't quoting you, but rather mentioning something you said with an obvious observation pertaining to the lack of clarity concerning the drum scan. It seems that your ability to follow sentence structure is as poor as your ability to understand what you are looking at in photographs ... especially copies of B&W ones. I will post your remarks once again so maybe you can find someone over there to help explain it to you."That is not exactly true, Duncan. I told you that the original Moorman photo quite clearly shows that what you call a "washout" on your fuzzy copies is not that at all. You replied that your drum scan, as fuzzy as it is, was good enough for study on this matter. I have to ask how it is that if the lesser quality fuzzy drum scan is giving you a false impression that cannot be found on the actual original photo, then how can you say that using the drum scan is good enough. Do you mean that it is good enough for those of you who wish to invent assassins from degraded images? Bill" The term "washout" is and always has been your word. Groden has several copies in his book and for the life of him he cannot understand why you say what you do either. More importantly was the fact that I told you that you should view the ORIGINAL photo (not copies) because no one that has done so has ever seen this "washout" as you call it. Your reply was that you have a copy of the drum scan and that was good enough. The point you made was in a sense saying you do not care to know the truth - you having copies that make something appear a certain way that the original photo does not show seems to be good enough for the purpose you intend to use it. Why would Moorman looking up hill at the fence make you think that anyone's head seen slightly above the fence would mean they must be a midget? Do we need a crash course in perspective???

I'm not sure that I follow your intent, but I guess it all lies with the individual researcher to decide just how interested is he or she in actually knowing what is and isn't there. The Museum isn't going to scan Moorman's photo to post on the Internet ... least ways I cannot see that happening. They do invite researchers to come to the Museum to view the materials they have on hand there. This would be done by appointment, which seems only reasonable. Those who are not that eager to spend any of their own time and money to go there really don't have much to complain about IMO. The Hat Man issue is interesting because such an individual was seen at the fence when a shot was heard from that location, along with a cloud of smoke being propelled through the trees." Josiah Thompson also went to Moorman's location to see if there was anything in the RR yard that could account for the "fedora" shape in Mary's photo and Josiah discovered there was not anything there and that what ever was there in Moorman's photo was only at that location during the assassination. Bill Hatman is talking through his hat? Mercy. ___________________________________ Bill, Interesting post I didn't realize that such an individual (wearing a hat) had been "seen at the fence when a shot was heard from that location." Seen by whom, specifically? Thanks, --Thomas ___________________________________ Thomas, Bowers mentioned the heavy set guy up by the fence when the shots rang out. Bowers got cut off by the Commission, but Mark Lane interviewed him and Bowers added that he saw a flash of light or smoke or something unusual at the fence as the President passed below. Ed Hoffman also saw this guy and said that he saw what looked like a puff of smoke come from this location while a man in a hat and suit had turned away from the fence holding a long gun. The man in that hat can be seen in Moorman's photo and in the Willis photo. See Groden's enlargement of the Willis photo in "The killing of a President". The figure is right in the corner and he blocks out the skylight behind him. This would be the same location that Sam Holland said he had heard a shot from just prior to seeing the smoke come through the trees. Bill

I'm not sure that I follow your intent, but I guess it all lies with the individual researcher to decide just how interested is he or she in actually knowing what is and isn't there. The Museum isn't going to scan Moorman's photo to post on the Internet ... least ways I cannot see that happening. They do invite researchers to come to the Museum to view the materials they have on hand there. This would be done by appointment, which seems only reasonable. Those who are not that eager to spend any of their own time and money to go there really don't have much to complain about IMO. The Hat Man issue is interesting because such an individual was seen at the fence when a shot was heard from that location, along with a cloud of smoke being propelled through the trees. Josiah Thompson also went to Moorman's location to see if there was anything in the RR yard that could account for the "fedora" shape in Mary's photo and Josiah discovered there was not anything there and that what ever was there in Moorman's photo was only at that location during the assassination. Bill Hatman is talking through his hat? Mercy. Can I assume that you have nothing to add or are you just trolling? Bill

I'm not sure that I follow your intent, but I guess it all lies with the individual researcher to decide just how interested is he or she in actually knowing what is and isn't there. The Museum isn't going to scan Moorman's photo to post on the Internet ... least ways I cannot see that happening. They do invite researchers to come to the Museum to view the materials they have on hand there. This would be done by appointment, which seems only reasonable. Those who are not that eager to spend any of their own time and money to go there really don't have much to complain about IMO. The Hat Man issue is interesting because such an individual was seen at the fence when a shot was heard from that location, along with a cloud of smoke being propelled through the trees. Josiah Thompson also went to Moorman's location to see if there was anything in the RR yard that could account for the "fedora" shape in Mary's photo and Josiah discovered there was not anything there and that what ever was there in Moorman's photo was only at that location during the assassination. Bill

Duncan's remarks were shown in response 10 and 14. I am still waiting for a rational and logical response from him. Duncan clearly says in his own way that he doesn't need to go see the original Moorman photo because he feels the drum scan is good enough for what he is doing. I am wanting he or someone to tell me why they would prefer a fuzzy scan over the original photo when wanting to be as certain as possible that their observations are correct. Bill