Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[David G. Healy]

I think Lane filmed three or four of them in "Rush to Judgment".

Bill

Yes, he filmed four of them. Here's the link to the Sam Holland inteview where he mentions the smoke and states emphatically that the shooter was 20 to 30 feet from the corner of the fence.

Duncan

Sam Holland Interview

Apparently you attribute the same level of reliability to an interview that you do to sworn testimony. I do NOT. I will use Skinny Holland's testimony before the WC LONG before I will use a private interview with a researcher. If YOU accept them on equal ground than clearly you and I will not agree on much.

lately, sworn testimony is a noose around the Lone Nut collective neck... couple that with altered film/photos/x-rays, botched autopsy -- we got us a mess, Sherlock!

[T. Folsom]

I think Lane filmed three or four of them in "Rush to Judgment".

Bill

Yes, he filmed four of them. Here's the link to the Sam Holland inteview where he mentions the smoke and states emphatically that the shooter was 20 to 30 feet from the corner of the fence.

Duncan

Sam Holland Interview

Apparently you attribute the same level of reliability to an interview that you do to sworn testimony. I do NOT. I will use Skinny Holland's testimony before the WC LONG before I will use a private interview with a researcher. If YOU accept them on equal ground than clearly you and I will not agree on much.

And an added note. Skinny Holland said that he saw smoke come out from beneath the trees. I'm certain that you are aware that the trees were NOT along the stockade fence in 1963, the trees were further down the grassy knoll. That being the case, please tell me where this gunman ran to after "shooting" the president since he wasn't behind the stockade fence at the time. Remember that NO ONE near the stockade fence saw ANYONE escaping from that location--NO ONE. So apparently the gunman was standing ON the grassy knoll in full view of everyone there and managed to get away without being seen by one single person.

Good theory.

[Miles Scull]

I think Lane filmed three or four of them in "Rush to Judgment".

Bill

Yes, he filmed four of them. Here's the link to the Sam Holland inteview where he mentions the smoke and states emphatically that the shooter was 20 to 30 feet from the corner of the fence.

Duncan

Sam Holland Interview

Duncan, Thx for Holland footage.

This goes to Hoffman's lack credibility re: sniper placement at the fence.

Here are a couple of quick frame captures.

1.) Notice the line of sight from Sam's position on the underpass at Z-313 to the steam pipe area. Clear as a bell.

2.) Note that Sam, or anyone else, could have & would have seen figures in that area; i.e., the figures would have been seen from just above their waist up to head top.

3.) Also, note that spectators (McVey) standing at the balustrade as marked by the red arrows would have been right on top of the rifle toss & the walk to the switch box for clandestine rifle breakdown.

[Bill Miller]

And an added note. Skinny Holland said that he saw smoke come out from beneath the trees. I'm certain that you are aware that the trees were NOT along the stockade fence in 1963, the trees were further down the grassy knoll. That being the case, please tell me where this gunman ran to after "shooting" the president since he wasn't behind the stockade fence at the time. Remember that NO ONE near the stockade fence saw ANYONE escaping from that location--NO ONE. So apparently the gunman was standing ON the grassy knoll in full view of everyone there and managed to get away without being seen by one single person.

Good theory.

The view Holland had and the stacking of the trees can be seen in the Lane clip from 'Rush to Judgment'. The larger trees were further down the hill ... the smaller trees were up near the fence and are also seen in the Holland clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYj3FAUHwro...ted&search=

Bill

Edited June 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I think Lane filmed three or four of them in "Rush to Judgment".

Bill

Yes, he filmed four of them. Here's the link to the Sam Holland inteview where he mentions the smoke and states emphatically that the shooter was 20 to 30 feet from the corner of the fence.

Duncan

Sam Holland Interview

Duncan, Thx for Holland footage.

This goes to Hoffman's lack credibility re: sniper placement at the fence.

Here are a couple of quick frame captures.

1.) Notice the line of sight from Sam's position on the underpass at Z-313 to the steam pipe area. Clear as a bell.

2.) Note that Sam, or anyone else, could have & would have seen figures in that area; i.e., the figures would have been seen from just above their waist up to head top.

3.) Also, note that spectators (McVey) standing at the balustrade as marked by the red arrows would have been right on top of the rifle toss & the walk to the switch box for clandestine rifle breakdown.

And to think none of them guys mentioned what it was that was seen tossed near the steam-pipe as reported to Seymour Weitzman.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I think Lane filmed three or four of them in "Rush to Judgment".

Bill

Yes, he filmed four of them. Here's the link to the Sam Holland inteview where he mentions the smoke and states emphatically that the shooter was 20 to 30 feet from the corner of the fence.

Duncan

Sam Holland Interview

Duncan, Thx for Holland footage.

This goes to Hoffman's lack credibility re: sniper placement at the fence.

Here are a couple of quick frame captures.

1.) Notice the line of sight from Sam's position on the underpass at Z-313 to the steam pipe area. Clear as a bell.

2.) Note that Sam, or anyone else, could have & would have seen figures in that area; i.e., the figures would have been seen from just above their waist up to head top.

3.) Also, note that spectators (McVey) standing at the balustrade as marked by the red arrows would have been right on top of the rifle toss & the walk to the switch box for clandestine rifle breakdown.

Duncan,

Here's a followup:

Mr. Ball.

Didn't you, when you went over to the railroad yard, talk to some yardman?

Mr. Weitzman.

I asked a yardman if he had seen or heard anything during the passing of the President. He said he thought he saw somebody throw something through a bush and that's when I went back over the fence and that's when I found the portion of the skull. I thought it was a firecracker portion; that's what we first were looking for. This was before we knew the President was dead.

Mr. Ball.

Did the yardman tell you where he thought the noise came from?

Mr. Weitzman.

Yes, sir; he pointed out the wall section where there was a bunch of shrubbery and I believe that's to the right where I went over the wall where the steampipe was; that would be going north back toward the jail.

Mr. Ball.

I think that's all. Do you have any desire to read this over and sign it or will you waive signature?

Mr. Weitzman.

I will waive my signature. I don't think the Government is going to alter my statement any.

Source:

Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VII, p. 105.

Duncan, note the underlined:

He said he thought he saw somebody throw something through a bush...

"through a bush"

It's important to realize that the only instance of anyone mentioning something being thrown is this report from Weitzman that a yardman told him that he, the yardman, THOUGHT that he had seen SOMEONE throw SOMETHING & that the yardman had seen this throwing of something through an intervening bush.

Well, there it is. Hoffman reports that the rifle was tossed over the steam pipe. The yardmen were either on the underpass or were in the parking lot or in the RR yard. Therefore, as all the photos clearly show, there were zero bushes, trees, shrubs or any foilage whatsoever of any description intervening between any yardman & the steam pipe.

Thus, If the yardman had really seen something being thrown through a bush, then that something could not have been Ed's alleged rifle.

Conclusion, Duncan?

Someone is engaged in super fudging.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Duncan, note the underlined:

"through a bush"

It's important to realize that the only instance of anyone mentioning something being thrown is this report from Weitzman that a yardmantold him that he, the yardman, THOUGHT that he had seen SOMEONE throw SOMETHING & that the yardman had seen this throwing of something through an intervening bush.

Well, there it is. Hoffman reports that the rifle was tossed over the steam pipe. The yardmen were either on the underpass or were in the parking lot or in the RR yard. Therefore, as all the photos clearly show, there were zero bushes, trees, shrubs or any foilage whatsoever of any discription intervening between any yardman & the steam pipe.

Thus, If the yardman had really seen something being thrown through a bush, then that something could not have been Ed's alleged rifle.

Conclusion, Duncan?

Someone is engaged in super fudging.

I think the Weitzman report said that when asked where the man saw some through a bush being tossed - he said over near the steam pipe - not over the steam pipe. You should probably go find the report and read it before critiquing it.

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

Here's a followup:

Mr. Ball.

Didn't you, when you went over to the railroad yard, talk to some yardman?

Mr. Weitzman.

I asked a yardman if he had seen or heard anything during the passing of the President. He said he thought he saw somebody throw something through a bush and that's when I went back over the fence and that's when I found the portion of the skull. I thought it was a firecracker portion; that's what we first were looking for. This was before we knew the President was dead.

Mr. Ball.

Did the yardman tell you where he thought the noise came from?

Mr. Weitzman.

Yes, sir; he pointed out the wall section where there was a bunch of shrubbery and I believe that's to the right where I went over the wall where the steampipe was; that would be going north back toward the jail.

Mr. Ball.

I think that's all. Do you have any desire to read this over and sign it or will you waive signature?

Mr. Weitzman.

I will waive my signature. I don't think the Government is going to alter my statement any.

Source:

Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VII, p. 105.

Duncan, note the underlined:

He said he thought he saw somebody throw something through a bush...

"through a bush"

It's important to realize that the only instance of anyone mentioning something being thrown is this report from Weitzman that a yardman told him that he, the yardman, THOUGHT that he had seen SOMEONE throw SOMETHING & that the yardman had seen this throwing of something through an intervening bush.

Well, there it is. Hoffman reports that the rifle was tossed over the steam pipe. The yardmen were either on the underpass or were in the parking lot or in the RR yard. Therefore, as all the photos clearly show, there were zero bushes, trees, shrubs or any foliage whatsoever of any description intervening between any yardman & the steam pipe.

Thus, If the yardman had really seen something being thrown through a bush, then that something could not have been Ed's alleged rifle.

Conclusion, Duncan?

Someone is engaged in super fudging.

Addendum:

From the land of fudgebom, Duncan, if we're talking midgets, maybe Ed meant to say that the little guy tossed it under the steam pipe. The proponents of Midget Man thus attain to a consistency: the assassination team was a troop of circus midgets who considered Lee, a giant, to be a perfect the-bigger-they-are-the-harder-they-fall fall guy!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

My responses:

1. [Dr. Malcolm Perry] went on to say that it could have been EITHER an entrance wound OR an exit wound.

But he never denied the fact that AT THE TIME OF HIS EXAMINATION he formed the opinion that the throat wound was a wound of entry, and that he so reported AT THE TIME to the White House press Corps.

ALL respected medical personal that have examined the x-rays are in agreement that .... the vast majority of the fragments were located to the right front and left FRONT of the presiden't brain.

As a layman, that sounds to me like what you would expect from a frangible bullet fired from the right front, and entirely consistent with what everyone can see in the Zapruder film. It certainly does not sound like the fatal bullet was of the jacketed variety.

If any expert can provide demonstrative data from a a number of X-Rays of comparable bullet wounds sufficient to support a contrary opinion, then we will all be happy to hear him/her out.

An expert opinion is admissible evidence, according to the Supreme Court, only if the expert can demonstrate that his opinion is based on sufficient background data. That is the problem that Bugliosi has run in to by citing Dr. Vincent Guinn, who had insufficient background data on bullet lead. Do the experts you rely on to interpret the X-Rays offer anything more than just their "opinion" as Guinn did? If so, where can we find the background data on which those opinions are based?

Right now we can all see evidence of an entry wound in the throat for which there is no direct evidence in contradiction, and we can see evidence of an entry wound in the right front of the head which is contradicted by the opinions of various doctors, a few of whom have seen the body and most of whom have not. The competence of those who DID see the body has been widely called into question.

At the Duquesne conference there were no dissenters among the forensic pathologists to the view that a consensus on the medical evidence cannot be achieved without an exhumation.

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

I know a little bit about 3D graphics from studying the work of Dale Myers and your Moorman view looked like something that Picasso had painted. The data you used in your model is so far off that any images stemming from that are merely fictitious and have nothing to do with reality. As I said before - you have an elevated perspective view on part of the picture and a level ground view in other parts of it, thus making it totally inaccurate. One of the things Myers had to admit was that any measurement even an inch or more off would effect a particular LOS within his model. Your Moorman picture is so far off that you see the base of the fence above the wall ... how can any views be accurate when the information that created that false image was not correct??? For instance - the view from the fence to the lamppole near the curb with the President's car passing below ... there was never a shot fired at JFK once the car had traveled that far west. To replicate the Moorman photo view looking back the other way would take a huge correction in angle and field of depth on your part. To say that your views are accurate is simply not so.

Bill

You said it, Bill! "I know a little bit about 3D graphics...."

Bill, you really should read my posts more carefully

before you jump in feet first and make a complete fool of yourself.

Read what I write!

You should also not compound your stupidity by blaming me for your total

inability to understand my images. The red lines on my images

are possible trajectory lines and not perspective lines as you mistakenly thought.

Your posts betray complete incompetence and failure to understand.

Your attention span is very very short (I am being generous here).

Please, Bill, concentrate!

You seem to be still suffering from your old complaint - ASODFF*.

I mentioned your attention span

problem before! Would you,please, CONCENTRATE harder!

Again DO NOT blame me for your own stupidity and recklessness!

*ASODFF (Attention Span of Dead Fruit Fly)

Please, view images below. These will help you understand perspective.

There are NO possible trajectory lines in these images.

I have left them out to reduce the danger of your shooting

yourself in the foot - three times - again.

EBC

P.S. Please see a doctor about your self-inflicted foot wounds.

All the best and remember:

" Time heals all wounds but time and a half heals quicker."

Edited June 29, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Bill Miller]

You said it, Bill! "I know a little bit about 3D graphics...."

Bill, you really should read my posts more carefully

before you jump in feet first and make a complete fool of yourself.

Read what I write!

You should also not compound your stupidity by blaming me for your total inability to understand my images. The red lines on my images

are possible trajectory lines and not perspective lines as you mistakenly thought.

Your posts betray complete incompetence and failure to understand.Your attention span is very very short (I am being generous here).

EBC, I read the post pretty carefully and because they are archived ... I can even go back and read them again and again. You didn't even mention the word "trajectory" in your original post with the images, but you did mention them showing "perspective". In fact, the image I used in my response showed two red lines not 4 to 6 fence slats apart with the same field of view, thus I could not imagine that you were showing two separate trajectories of only a few fence slats apart, nor could I imagine the importance of even mentioning it. Call me ignorant, but your mentioning of the word "perspective" and with the two lines starting at only a few slat boards apart and leading back to JFK did appear to be 'perspective lines' as I read your post.

Bill

Here is what you said in your original post ...

Duncan,

Please view these reconstruction images:

Compare size of heads of car occupants as viewed from the fence.

Anyone in the car would see that anyone standing at the

fence would have the same size of head as those in the car

if the car occupants could view themselves from the same

position as that of the person standing at the fence.

(Impossible, of course!)

Anyone standing on the grass verge could see a correspondingly smaller head at the fence

since h/she (on the grass verge) would be further from the seen head (on the fence).

If Duncan's shooter's head was well concealed it might have been virtually invisible or virtually indiscernible

to anyone standing on the grass verge at an initial,

secondary or even tertiary glance.

Duncan's shooter would have been only potentially

visible or discernible for a matter of seconds (if even that long).

The shooter would have broken cover

for the minimal amount of time

it took him to execute the action.

It is amazing that Moorman's photo captured the very

second that the shot impacted with JFK's head and in

doing so Moorman, perforce, captured the shooter.

The images show the exact same event viewed from different locations and perspectives.

The graphics structures' measurements are based on 1963-era maps of Dealey Plaza,

I hope this helps,Duncan

EBC "

Edited June 29, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

EBC, I read the post pretty carefully and because they are archived ... I can even go back and read them EBC, I read the post pretty carefully and because they are archived ... I can even go back and read them again and again. You didn't even mention the word "trajectory" in your original post with the images, but you did mention them showing "perspective". In fact, the image I used in my response showed two red lines not 4 to 6 fence slats apart with the same field of view, thus I could not imagine that you were showing two separate trajectories of only a few fence slats apart, nor could I imagine the importance of even mentioning it. Call me ignorant, but your mentioning of the word "perspective" and with the two lines starting at only a few slat boards apart and leading back to JFK did appear to be 'perspective lines' as I read your post.

Bill,

Thanks for your post.

It is a great pity that you do not read my posts carefully

on your first view of them.

Why you should feel the compunction to go

back to them 'again and again ' suggests to me that you may

have some reading impediment or again - as I have

already mentioned - a certain lack of concentration and suggests also

an inability to focus on the matter in hand.

You write: "Call me ignorant, but your mentioning of the word "perspective" and

with the two lines starting at only a few slat boards apart and leading back

to JFK did appear to be 'perspective lines' as I read your post. "

Bill....you are ignorant.

Whether my "possible trajectory lines" appeared to you

to be "perspective lines" reinforces the fact that

you are not only stupid but, in your own words,

ignorant.

If you - in your stupidity and ignorance - imagined

that I was suggesting that Duncan's shooter's head

was the width of a few slat boards then you are

not only stupid and ignorant.

You are totally insane.

What goes on in your fevered little

stupid ignorant head

is no concern of mine.

Again, the red lines in my images were 'possible trajectory lines'

from various locations from behind the picket fence and not as you, in your

crass folly and inanity, thought 'perspective lines' .

Thanks for posting my original post.

Please feel free to read this post and my earlier

posts again and again and again.........

Regards

EBC

Edited June 30, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Bill Miller]

If you - in your stupidity and ignorance - imagined

that I was suggesting that Duncan's shooter's head

was the width of a few slat boards then you are

not only stupid and ignorant.

You are totally insane.

What goes on in your fevered little

stupid ignorant head

is no concern of mine.

Again, the red lines in my images were 'possible trajectory lines'

from various locations from behind the picket fence and not as you, in your

crass folly and inanity, thought 'perspective lines' .

EBC,

Do you always go off on tangents without thinking things through first? Maybe to help show my stupidity - please tell this forum how wide a fence slat is? How about the average width of a human face? I know the answers to these questions and I also pointed out the clip showing Holland's head next to those slats, so get the facts and then come back and tell me how stupid I am.

As far as your trajectory lines in the image I used ... The two lines are less than a foot apart at the fence .... are you saying it was your purpose to make us aware that a shot could have come over one fence slat or possible another one 3 - 4 slats away??? If the answer is yes, then please explain how that was important?

Thanks!

Bill Miller

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Do you always go off on tangents without thinking things through first? Maybe to help show my stupidity - please tell this forum how wide a fence slat is? How about the average width of a human face? I know the answers to these questions and I also pointed out the clip showing Holland's head next to those slats, so get the facts and then come back and tell me how stupid I am.

As far as your trajectory lines in the image I used ... The two lines are less than a foot apart at the fence .... are you saying it was your purpose to make us aware that a shot could have come over one fence slat or possible another one 3 - 4 slats away??? If the answer is yes, then please explain how that was important?

Thanks!

Bill Miller[/b]

Oh Bill, you old devil! Will you ever learn?

"Call me ignorant, but your mentioning of the word "perspective" and with the two lines starting at only a few slat boards apart and leading back to JFK did appear to be 'perspective lines' as I read your post."

For a man who wants me to get the facts right maybe you could give me the facts and stop

using inexact and vague words like

a "few slats wide".

How wide is a "few slats" in your

strange imprecise terminology?

I know that the fence is 5' 00" high on the carpark side.

I do not know how wide a single slat is.

You tell me since you seem to spend most of your waking hours

cruising Dealey Plaza and the Grassy Knoll.

How wide is an average head?

Four inches? Five inches?

How wide is an individual slat in the picket fence?

Two inches? Three inches? Four inches?

Do the math, Bill!

Put it like this Bill:

Imagine the "red trajectory line" is about

the width of the muzzle of a rifle barrell.

Now scale it up from there.

".....so get the facts and then come back and tell me how stupid I am."

Bill, you're as stupid as sh1t.

In fact you're so full of sh1t that everyone knows when you are on the Grassy Knoll

because they can hear your shoes going "squish squish" when you walk.

Please view attached image. Perhaps this will help...................?

All the very best,

EBC

Edited July 3, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Ed O'Hagan]

It was in viewing the above that consideration of perspective should have been applied. There is no rifleman , but there is a shoulder-to- shoulder line of policemen most of whom are depicted aiming cameras. What was visually interpreted initially to be a shooter's head/face, is actually the overlapping facial images of two policemen standing behind them.

Eugene's post of the entire fenceline yields many examples of groups of policemen being depicted aiming cameras . The following should be viewed from about 6 ft. back from the screen in a darkened room :