Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[Chris Davidson]

I thought that bullets travel down the barrel ... maybe guns work differedntly where you live. And while we are taking into consideration the timing of Moorman's photo, then I assume that the limo is not where it was when the fatal head shot hit the President, thus your LOS is also incorrect ... would you not agree?

Bill

The rifle would have moved relative to the movement of the limo during the tracking of the presidents head by the shooter. No I don't agree..the LOS would also still have been relative at Moorman with acceptable minimal insignificant degrees of inacuracy in the given time frame

Duncan

Duncan

10' to the Hudson tree?

Have you considered the head movement vis-à-vis trajectories from a shot originating from midget man's alleged position at the fence? They do not work.

Yet your sniper's trajectories do.

On the subject of the parking lot being congested with a sea of cars (Holland) which were bumper to bumper (Holland) so that there was not an inch that was not cars...

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

here is an aerial shot on Nov. 23, 1963, which Gary Mack adjusts to Nov. 24, 1963:

1.) Notice that the cars parked along the long leg of the picket fence are parked right up against the fence.

2.) Notice that there are no objects down along the north face of the fence abutting the fence except the cars nosed close into the fence or backed close into the fence.

3.) Notice the area of the lot just to the east side of the steam pipe. You can see a light color pickup truck parked a few feet from the steam pipe. It's clear that cars could have been, would have been & were jammed in parked along the steam pipe abutting the steam pipe at noon on th 11-22-63.

This photographic evidence coupled with the eyewitness evidence of Sam Holland (and other corroborating witnesses) shows that Ed Hoffman's alleged sniper would not have had clear passage to do what Ed says he did: i.e., walk freely to the steam pipe with a rifle held at port arms. For the sniper to have reached the steam pipe for the alleged "rifle toss" he would have had to have weaved & squeezed in & around the array of parked cars. He had no open & direct passage. This would have slowed & retarded Ed's sniper movement to the steam pipe.

The real sniper & the real sniper's spotter & the real sniper's team of advisers would have realized the extreme hazards & illogicality of Ed's proposed exit strategy. It would be a death trap on the face of it!

If Ed's exit plan is adopted then Ed's 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 to apprehension & death. Conclusion: Ed's dog don't hunt.

I agree with everything you say Miles. Any shooter would have been aware of the suicidal risks involved taking Ed's route. It's just lunacy to even consider this. I haven't looked in to the hatman trajectory possibilities because I write it off instantly judging by the position of the supposed hat in Moorman. The reason I asked about the distance of the tree is because I have a dvd where Hudson states that the smoke came from around 15ft to the right of the tree.

Duncan,

You're back! Good to see a Scotsman prime minister.

Here's a frame capture I made awhile back from Lane/Holland you might note as showing Sam's view.

Another blurry one:

Hudson's report that the smoke was 15 feet to the right of the tree is accounted for by the fact that the wind

was blowing from NW to SE; thus, toward Hudson with time elapse to consider. (The Cronkite color is available.)

As you can see Sam's view of the picket fence corner is somewhat obscured by the intervening foliage.

This cloaking of the corner would have been more pronounced on Nov. 22, 1963. Thus, it would have

been difficult for Sam to accurately gage the smoke's distance from the corner of the fence. Sam gives a

range of 20 to 30 feet. Only later, after Sam had threaded his way through the sea of cars & after he had

arrived at the trampled muddy area, did Sam begin to associate the smoke's position with the muddy foot

print area. But, reasoning that the muddy footprints were made by a non-shooter at 10 to 15 feet from the

corner (not 20 to 30 feet!), then Sam's original estimate of 20 to 30 feet for the smoke makes sense for a

shooter at 33 feet. In this construction, for example, midget man could have been a spotter as midget man

could have seen umbrella man's signal as a sniper at 33 feet could not have done. This is the explanation.

On another thread I posted this image of midget-man's hat. Two things are immediately clear;

1.) If this is a hat, which is debatable, then the figure wearing the hat (fedora?) is situated two low behind

the fence, no matter how far away from the fence he is standing. A rifle or a XP-100 could not have been

aimed & fired in the time bracket by anyone under this hat (i.e., wearing this hat).

2.) There is a small pink light area, pointed to by the green arrow, which suggests light passage at the hat's

brim area. Is this something shiny on the hat at an odd place on the hat for any "badge," etc., to be? Or,

is this simply not a hat? If it is a hat, then here's a spotter.

Finally, again from another thread, Duncan, have you seen this?

I put red arrows pointing to a left ear & to sunglasses for Duncan Man from a blowup by EBC.

Miles

Hi all,

Briefly, S.M. Holland I believe nails the description of the first two shots (especially after listening to Connally's/Newman's accounts) with his interview on the 1967 WarrenReport. Audio provided from that 1967 interview

He then goes on to describe a third and fourth shot.

According to Holland, third shot is the head shot as he also discussed with Mark Lane.

In the Lane interview, Holland is asked where the limo was, at the head shot.

Holland replies "a little before the lamp-post".

The lamp-post described is near the Ft.Worth sign, past the stairs that Hudson stands upon.

Which is not where the limo is in Moorman. imo

Any ideas to reconcile this?

thanks

chris

Hi Chris,

Sam actually said to Lane: "just a little bit to the left of that lamppost..."

IMHO, Sam is juxtaposing two memories of impressions he received on the 22nd.

Sam remembers his seeing events from the top of the underpass. He hears the successive shots as he sees the limo moving down Elm.

Sam sees at one point Z-313 & its aftermath as the limo continues to move down Elm.

When Sam moves to the picket fence he looks for casings in the trampled muddy area.

Here, he assumes that this is where the sniper was & that this is where the smoke emanated.

To Sam this seemed logical as he experienced these impressions on the 22nd. However, Sam didn't stop

to analyze in great detail, as, of course he had no time to do so.

Thus, after the passage of years Sam in revisiting the scene reconstructs from his memory the impressions

he received on the 22nd. Sam simply assumes the "just to the left of that lamppost" is Z-313, when of course it is not in actuality,

but is Sam's idea of where Z-313 should have been given his juxtaposing in his mind his two impressions. In other words Sam in his memory

is recalling the events occurring not just at Z-313 but from Z-313 AND the succeeding seconds. This would move the Limo in Sam's mind to a

place further west from the Z-313 point on the street which of course is found from Moorman.

So, a simple, honest mistake.

Does this make sense, Chris?

Miles

First let me say, Duncan if you feel I'm hijacking your post please say so and I will start a new thread.

But I feel this ties into your discussion somehow with regards to perspective or my lack thereof.

Bill/Miles

I would tend to agree with both of you were it not for Holland's accurate description of shots and reactions some 348ft. away from him, at approx frame 210.

At frame 313, the limo is now 88ft closer to Holland than frame 210.

And, the lamp-post near the Ft. Worth sign is another 100ft closer to Holland than frame 313, according to the Drommer survey of 1981.

I took this picture from the overpass.

It is very difficult to imagine, especially with the bend in the road that Holland could have miscalculated. imo

The frame measurement's are from the WC.

Red lines are just a rough span of 313 to lamp-post.

chris

[Bill Miller]

At frame 313, the limo is now 88ft closer to Holland than frame 210.

And, the lamp-post near the Ft. Worth sign is another 100ft closer to Holland than frame 313, according to the Drommer survey of 1981.

I took this picture from the overpass.

It is very difficult to imagine, especially with the bend in the road that Holland could have miscalculated. imo

The frame measurement's are from the WC.

Red lines are just a rough span of 313 to lamp-post.

chris

Right ... Holland could've recalled the limo at any place within that red box and still have been accurate.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

I thought that bullets travel down the barrel ... maybe guns work differedntly where you live. And while we are taking into consideration the timing of Moorman's photo, then I assume that the limo is not where it was when the fatal head shot hit the President, thus your LOS is also incorrect ... would you not agree?

Bill

The rifle would have moved relative to the movement of the limo during the tracking of the presidents head by the shooter. No I don't agree..the LOS would also still have been relative at Moorman with acceptable minimal insignificant degrees of inacuracy in the given time frame

Duncan

Duncan

10' to the Hudson tree?

Have you considered the head movement vis-à-vis trajectories from a shot originating from midget man's alleged position at the fence? They do not work.

Yet your sniper's trajectories do.

On the subject of the parking lot being congested with a sea of cars (Holland) which were bumper to bumper (Holland) so that there was not an inch that was not cars...

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

here is an aerial shot on Nov. 23, 1963, which Gary Mack adjusts to Nov. 24, 1963:

1.) Notice that the cars parked along the long leg of the picket fence are parked right up against the fence.

2.) Notice that there are no objects down along the north face of the fence abutting the fence except the cars nosed close into the fence or backed close into the fence.

3.) Notice the area of the lot just to the east side of the steam pipe. You can see a light color pickup truck parked a few feet from the steam pipe. It's clear that cars could have been, would have been & were jammed in parked along the steam pipe abutting the steam pipe at noon on th 11-22-63.

This photographic evidence coupled with the eyewitness evidence of Sam Holland (and other corroborating witnesses) shows that Ed Hoffman's alleged sniper would not have had clear passage to do what Ed says he did: i.e., walk freely to the steam pipe with a rifle held at port arms. For the sniper to have reached the steam pipe for the alleged "rifle toss" he would have had to have weaved & squeezed in & around the array of parked cars. He had no open & direct passage. This would have slowed & retarded Ed's sniper movement to the steam pipe.

The real sniper & the real sniper's spotter & the real sniper's team of advisers would have realized the extreme hazards & illogicality of Ed's proposed exit strategy. It would be a death trap on the face of it!

If Ed's exit plan is adopted then Ed's 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 to apprehension & death. Conclusion: Ed's dog don't hunt.

I agree with everything you say Miles. Any shooter would have been aware of the suicidal risks involved taking Ed's route. It's just lunacy to even consider this. I haven't looked in to the hatman trajectory possibilities because I write it off instantly judging by the position of the supposed hat in Moorman. The reason I asked about the distance of the tree is because I have a dvd where Hudson states that the smoke came from around 15ft to the right of the tree.

Duncan,

You're back! Good to see a Scotsman prime minister.

Here's a frame capture I made awhile back from Lane/Holland you might note as showing Sam's view.

Another blurry one:

Hudson's report that the smoke was 15 feet to the right of the tree is accounted for by the fact that the wind

was blowing from NW to SE; thus, toward Hudson with time elapse to consider. (The Cronkite color is available.)

As you can see Sam's view of the picket fence corner is somewhat obscured by the intervening foliage.

This cloaking of the corner would have been more pronounced on Nov. 22, 1963. Thus, it would have

been difficult for Sam to accurately gage the smoke's distance from the corner of the fence. Sam gives a

range of 20 to 30 feet. Only later, after Sam had threaded his way through the sea of cars & after he had

arrived at the trampled muddy area, did Sam begin to associate the smoke's position with the muddy foot

print area. But, reasoning that the muddy footprints were made by a non-shooter at 10 to 15 feet from the

corner (not 20 to 30 feet!), then Sam's original estimate of 20 to 30 feet for the smoke makes sense for a

shooter at 33 feet. In this construction, for example, midget man could have been a spotter as midget man

could have seen umbrella man's signal as a sniper at 33 feet could not have done. This is the explanation.

On another thread I posted this image of midget-man's hat. Two things are immediately clear;

1.) If this is a hat, which is debatable, then the figure wearing the hat (fedora?) is situated two low behind

the fence, no matter how far away from the fence he is standing. A rifle or a XP-100 could not have been

aimed & fired in the time bracket by anyone under this hat (i.e., wearing this hat).

2.) There is a small pink light area, pointed to by the green arrow, which suggests light passage at the hat's

brim area. Is this something shiny on the hat at an odd place on the hat for any "badge," etc., to be? Or,

is this simply not a hat? If it is a hat, then here's a spotter.

Finally, again from another thread, Duncan, have you seen this?

I put red arrows pointing to a left ear & to sunglasses for Duncan Man from a blowup by EBC.

Miles

Hi all,

Briefly, S.M. Holland I believe nails the description of the first two shots (especially after listening to Connally's/Newman's accounts) with his interview on the 1967 WarrenReport. Audio provided from that 1967 interview

He then goes on to describe a third and fourth shot.

According to Holland, third shot is the head shot as he also discussed with Mark Lane.

In the Lane interview, Holland is asked where the limo was, at the head shot.

Holland replies "a little before the lamp-post".

The lamp-post described is near the Ft.Worth sign, past the stairs that Hudson stands upon.

Which is not where the limo is in Moorman. imo

Any ideas to reconcile this?

thanks

chris

Hi Chris,

Sam actually said to Lane: "just a little bit to the left of that lamppost..."

IMHO, Sam is juxtaposing two memories of impressions he received on the 22nd.

Sam remembers his seeing events from the top of the underpass. He hears the successive shots as he sees the limo moving down Elm.

Sam sees at one point Z-313 & its aftermath as the limo continues to move down Elm.

When Sam moves to the picket fence he looks for casings in the trampled muddy area.

Here, he assumes that this is where the sniper was & that this is where the smoke emanated.

To Sam this seemed logical as he experienced these impressions on the 22nd. However, Sam didn't stop

to analyze in great detail, as, of course he had no time to do so.

Thus, after the passage of years Sam in revisiting the scene reconstructs from his memory the impressions

he received on the 22nd. Sam simply assumes the "just to the left of that lamppost" is Z-313, when of course it is not in actuality,

but is Sam's idea of where Z-313 should have been given his juxtaposing in his mind his two impressions. In other words Sam in his memory

is recalling the events occurring not just at Z-313 but from Z-313 AND the succeeding seconds. This would move the Limo in Sam's mind to a

place further west from the Z-313 point on the street which of course is found from Moorman.

So, a simple, honest mistake.

Does this make sense, Chris?

Miles

First let me say, Duncan if you feel I'm hijacking your post please say so and I will start a new thread.

But I feel this ties into your discussion somehow with regards to perspective or my lack thereof.

Bill/Miles

I would tend to agree with both of you were it not for Holland's accurate description of shots and reactions some 348ft. away from him, at approx frame 210.

At frame 313, the limo is now 88ft closer to Holland than frame 210.

And, the lamp-post near the Ft. Worth sign is another 100ft closer to Holland than frame 313, according to the Drommer survey of 1981.

I took this picture from the overpass.

It is very difficult to imagine, especially with the bend in the road that Holland could have miscalculated. imo

The frame measurement's are from the WC.

Red lines are just a rough span of 313 to lamp-post.

chris

Chris thanks for you excellent photo which I will save with your permission.

On the Holland conundrum, I'm a little confused.

I think you may be on to something, however.

What do you think could be an alternative explanation?

Miles

[Bernice Moore]

In Hollands recall on the uTube he states that the smoke drifted out from those two trees..after mentioning

where the shot that he heard , came from, in that specific area..

From his testimony...

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.

snip

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.

snip

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.

Mr. STERN - And that was later you came behind the station wagon?

Mr. HOLLAND - Oh, maybe 3 or 4 minutes after I got up there, and 3 or 4 minutes after I got up to the end of the fence.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/holland.htm

Below is Sam on the overpass, taken I believe in 1967.....He had a seemingly clear veiw of the fence area, and all....and perhaps even somewhat

better of the fence that day, Nov.22..63...as the trees and all had four more years of growth on them....when this was taken...

B......

[Chris Davidson]

In Hollands recall on the uTube he states that the smoke drifted out from those two trees..after mentioning

where the shot that he heard , came from, in that specific area..

From his testimony...

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.

snip

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.

snip

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.

Mr. STERN - And that was later you came behind the station wagon?

Mr. HOLLAND - Oh, maybe 3 or 4 minutes after I got up there, and 3 or 4 minutes after I got up to the end of the fence.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/holland.htm

Below is Sam on the overpass, taken I believe in 1967.....He had a seemingly clear veiw of the fence area, and all....and perhaps even somewhat

better of the fence that day, Nov.22..63...as the trees and all had four more years of growth on them....when this was taken...

B......

Great stuff Bernice,

So Holland also gives an accurate description of Moorman and Hill according to the Zfilm.

Then Stern confuses the issue:

Mr. HOLLAND - And another report rang out and he slumped down in his seat, and about that time Mrs. Kennedy was looking at these girls over here [indicating]. The girls standing---now one of them was taking a picture, and the other one was just standing there, and she turned around facing the President and Governor Connally. In other words, she realized what was happening, I guess.

Now, I mean, that was apparently that---she turned back around, and by the time she could get turned around he was hit again along in---I'd say along in here [indicating].

Mr. STERN - How do you know that? Did you observe that?

Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over. That second---

Mr. STERN - Did you hear a third report?

Holland has just described the third shot according to the Zfilm.

Yet, in the WarrenReport interview, he makes a (supposed) mistake and says the limo is 100 feet farther west when this shot occurs.

Maybe he see's a shot after the 313 headshot, and that is the one closer to the lamp-post.

What would these reactions be to, starting with frame 347?

Thanks John and Tom.

chris

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

I am sorry that systematically (?) and logically (?) investigating a photograph is considered an old trick to you, EBC. There are two views looking towards the fence that I have addressed .... both showing the actual fence and its slats. One is Moorman's photo and the other is the Lane interview with Holland. Knowing the measurements of objects within a photograph can be beneficial in determining the size of other objects thought to be seen in the same photograph. So maybe instead of viewing such data as a "preoccupation" .. try seeing it as necessary so to help test the accuracy of your conclusions. Remember: "By their fruits ye shall know them".

Bill Miller

You got a nerve, Miller!

Twister! You jump from one foot to the other. Forever changing your position.

Please note my image is an impression not a photograph!

As an impression it gives an excellent idea of

the perspective from that area of the picket fence!

All this nonsense about the slats and the slat widths

- even down to where the darn wood for the

picket fence was bought(!) - is a total and futile clutching at straws!!

A complete diversion! As usual!!

As for your systematic and logical investigation:

it is anything but!

EBC

Edited July 6, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Miles Scull]

In Hollands recall on the uTube he states that the smoke drifted out from those two trees..after mentioning

where the shot that he heard , came from, in that specific area..

Below is Sam on the overpass, taken I believe in 1967.....He had a seemingly clear veiw of the fence area, and all....and perhaps even somewhat

better of the fence that day, Nov.22..63...as the trees and all had four more years of growth on them....when this was taken...

B......

Hi B.,

As usual you've come up trumps! I mean if there's a photo to the point you've got it.

I added some arrows:

Here's some smoke (red arrows):

Here's some more smoke: white circle. The red arrow pointing down may be the sniper: Duncan Man.

The smoke is drifting NW to SE on the wind. Therefore, from Sam's perch atop the underpass

the smoke would seem to emanate from midget man's spot, when in fact it came from about

33 feet from the fence corner. Thus, when Sam ran to the end of the fence & then back to the

small trampled muddy area at the fence, Sam mistakenly assumed that this area was the origin

of the smoke & by further extrapolation the point of the firing of the shot & by further extrapolation

the position of the sniper.

A simple, honest, understandable error & a forgivable error.

M

[Miles Scull]

Hi Miles..Didn't you know Tony Blair is also Scottish?...He was born in Edinburgh. Anyway, Hatman..If it is a hat and a man, then he must be a few feet back from the fence, otherwise as previously stated he's a midget...there's no escape from this given the headshot Moorman timeframe.

Duncan

Duncan,

From my post to Bernie:

The smoke is drifting NW to SE on the wind. Therefore, from Sam's perch atop the underpass

the smoke would seem to emanate from midget man's spot, when in fact it came from about

33 feet from the fence corner. Thus, when Sam ran to the end of the fence & then back to the

small trampled muddy area at the fence, Sam mistakenly assumed that this area was the origin

of the smoke & by further extrapolation the point of the firing of the shot & by further extrapolation

the position of the sniper.

A simple, honest, understandable error & a forgivable error.

I was wondering about your opinion on a funny idea:

Suppose you had spent years, as you have done, in the belief that Duncan Man was the real sniper.

Suppose that you had spent years giving lectures & presentations defending your belief in Duncan Man,

thus firmly staking your reputation & public image on the Duncan Man thesis & theory. Indeed, your

self esteem itself had come to be founded on Duncan Man.

Then, one day, someone came up to you with an amazing new photo, which had been overlooked for years.

This new photo showed unmistakably that Duncan Man was in reality only an image of Oscar McVey, the

parking lot supervisor, and thus NOT the sniper.

Duncan, in your opinion, would you, then, become extremely angry & try to claim that McVey may have been a super CIA mole?

Miles

[Bill Miller]

The smoke is drifting NW to SE on the wind. Therefore, from Sam's perch atop the underpass

the smoke would seem to emanate from midget man's spot, when in fact it came from about

33 feet from the fence corner. Thus, when Sam ran to the end of the fence & then back to the

small trampled muddy area at the fence, Sam mistakenly assumed that this area was the origin

of the smoke & by further extrapolation the point of the firing of the shot & by further extrapolation

the position of the sniper.

A simple, honest, understandable error & a forgivable error.

There have been some simple mistakes made, but not by Holland. Bowers clearly spoke of two men in the RR yard. One of the men if I am not mistaken was met by Officer Smith. The other man who was said to be up by the fence can be seen in part in Moorman's photo and in the Willis photo. Bowers told Lane that where the man near the fence was located that there was a flash of light or some unusual occurrence that took place there. Two men about 15 feet apart. The choices for possible shooters is very limited.

It is also worth noting that the smoke from a rifle shot is propelled down the barrel and will hold its shape until it drifts out into the air before being blown apart. It was the small tress and fence that held that smoke together which allows it to be seen in the Dave Wiegman film. That smoke is east of the Hudson tree in Wiegman's film for it blocks part of that tree from view.

I was wondering about your opinion on a funny idea:

Suppose you had spent years, as you have done, in the belief that Duncan Man was the real sniper.

Suppose that you had spent years giving lectures & presentations defending your belief in Duncan Man,

thus firmly staking your reputation & public image on the Duncan Man thesis & theory. Indeed, your

self esteem itself had come to be founded on Duncan Man.

Then, one day, someone came up to you with an amazing new photo, which had been overlooked for years.

This new photo showed unmistakably that Duncan Man was in reality only an image of Oscar McVey, the

parking lot supervisor, and thus NOT the sniper.

Duncan, in your opinion, would you, then, become extremely angry & try to claim that McVey may have been a super CIA mole?

Miles

Even worse would be if one actually went to the 6th Floor Museum, contacted Mack, contacted Thompson, contacted Groden, or spoke to anyone else who had in their possession and/or have seen better prints only to discover that they have wasted an enormous amount of time posting about seeing a 'wash out' that never existed in the first place. Then to make matters worse - they by accident ran into someone skilled in photography and/or art and they found that their alleged floating torso outline was in fact too large to be human because of the distance it was observed from the camera. Can one imagine the embarrassment for not only ignoring these points when they were first made known, but for refusing to actually follow-up in a responsible way so not to have looked ridiculous to the rest of the research community.

I don't know if this would make one angry, but I think it may have frustrated the rest of the researchers to the point of being angry.

Bill Miller

Edited July 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Even worse would be if one actually went to the 6th Floor Museum, contacted Mack, contacted Thompson, contacted Groden, or spoke to anyone else who had in their possession and/or have seen better prints only to discover that they have wasted an enormous amount of time posting about seeing a 'wash out' that never existed in the first place.

Bill Miller

Big words from someone who has repeatedly refused my request that he post these amazingly clear photographs which could win his case.

Where I come from, the prosecution submits evidence to kill off the defence. In this case, the defence has posted a clear full Moorman to prove it's point. The Miller prosecution team has come up with nothing other than stale hot windy air. If you have this amazing clear full copy of Moorman which you say shows the Skyline, then post it. I suspect you won't. Why?..You don't have it.

Duncan

Duncan, you pretty much just explained why people cannot take you seriously. Even Jack has told you that the image you posted was not good. It has been shown by way of comparisons that the Hat Man's fedora is little more than a fuzzy blur in your so-called "clear full Moorman". Your "clear full Moorman" doesn't have the clarity of the print that Jack used to show Arnold and Badge Man and yet you tell this forum (as if they are too stupid to know better) that you have posted a clear full Moorman print. You have presented propaganda - not facts. I can only suggest that you fire your lead defense respresentive. And believe me ... if the people who had the best prints would give me one, then I would certainly post it. I have partial crops from those images, but the not the whole image and have said so in the past. So the fact is that it matters little if I possess the best prints, but rather that they do exist and you have not posted where you have even attempted to see them other than asking me to produce them. Maybe this simple investigative rule can be of some help to you - Those who do not have the data that you seek can tell you about it and where to look for it, but cannot give it to you - while those who do possess it, can.

And we both know that if you could prove me in error - you'd do so even if it meant seeking out those types of people who I have suggested. The fact that you won't do it tells me that you don't feel as confident about your position as you let on.

Bill

Edited July 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Even worse would be if one actually went to the 6th Floor Museum, contacted Mack, contacted Thompson, contacted Groden, or spoke to anyone else who had in their possession and/or have seen better prints only to discover that they have wasted an enormous amount of time posting about seeing a 'wash out' that never existed in the first place.

Bill Miller

Big words from someone who has repeatedly refused my request that he post these amazingly clear photographs which could win his case.

Where I come from, the prosecution submits evidence to kill off the defence. In this case, the defence has posted a clear full Moorman to prove it's point. The Miller prosecution team has come up with nothing other than stale hot windy air. If you have this amazing clear full copy of Moorman which you say shows the Skyline, then post it. I suspect you won't. Why?..You don't have it.

Duncan

Duncan,

Concerning the smoke question, I was able to adjust a Bell frame by texture, hue & contrast level

enhancement tweaks without altering the geometry of objects or topographic benchmarks. The one

problem I could not remove was the brown lumpish artifact on the left, despite consulting with

Gary Mack. Mack's comment was: "Don't worry about it, it may be a shooter; you just can't prove it

on the available evidence." Does the artifact look familiar to you, Duncan?

Anyway, the smoke (upper red arrow) is obviously to the left of the Hudson tree! QED

Edited July 6, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

Concerning the smoke question, I was able to adjust a Bell frame by texture, hue & contrast level

enhancement tweaks without altering the geometry of objects or topographic benchmarks. The one

problem I could not remove was the brown lumpish artifact on the left, despite consulting with

Gary Mack. Mack's comment was: "Don't worry about it, it may be a shooter; you just can't prove it

on the available evidence." Does the artifact look familiar to you, Duncan?

Anyway, the smoke (upper red arrow) is obviously to the left of the Hudson tree! QED

I say let the response #342 stand in testimony as to the lack of seriousness you have involving the purpose of this forum and JFK's murder. This is just why some people like Posner and Bugliosi believe that CT's are kooks. And I doubt that Gary Mack appreciates your using his name to help promote such idiocy.

Bill Miller

Edited July 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Duncan, you pretty much just explained why people cannot take you seriously. Even Jack has told you that the image you posted was not good.

Blatant lie. Jack has told me no such thing

Ok - so you want to play dumb and dance some more ... no problem. Did not EBC use your Moorman image and do some enlargements.

"Apologies for impinging on Duncan's

research. I thought I could try

and get a closer look a the shooter in Moorman's photo.

Apologies again to Duncan.

EBC" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=10251&st=0

This is what Jack had to say, "EBC: as someone who studied the Moorman photo for many years from sharp excellent copies, I hate to burst your bubble. Those

are extremely terrible representations. Your badgeman area is an unrecognizable blur. Sorry to be so critical.

Jack" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=10390&st=0

"Duncan, I have lost track of how many times I have posted information showing that the drum scan is inferior compared to the original scans of Moorman's photo before fading took place. Jack White for instance got his Badge Man image from an early print - find Badge Man on the drum scan if you even can and tells us how the two compare ... it's a bloody joke! The same can be said about Groden's 'Hat Man' in his book, as well as in Josiah's book "Six seconds in Dallas". Find that same location on the drum scan and compare the two for there is no comparison ... the drum scan is most inferior. Now having said that ... one must be a real dunce to still try and pass off the drum scan as being more reliable than the copies that were made when Moorman's photo was still clear and sharp. If I substitute a few words in your response, then I am basically saying something like 'its more preferable to use a fuzzy inferior image to look for details over a sharper cleaner image'. One would think that you would not want to continue such nonsense because it makes you appear lacking in common sense to continue on with such foolishness, but each person has to set his or her own standards for appearing credible ... that is your right." http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=10251&st=0

Duncan writes: "Can you tell me WHO tries to pass off the drum scan as being more reliable than the copies that were made when Moorman's photo was still clear and sharp? It certainly wasn't me. I only stated that I use it for comparisons. Some comparisons verify, some don't." http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=10251&st=0 reply #12

(see Jack's Badge Man overlay on your 'clear Moorman image') - reply #226 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0251&st=225

(see Jack White's Badge Man from one of his prints to compare to Duncan's so-called 'Clear full Moorman') - reply #234 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0251&st=225

It has been shown by way of comparisons that the Hat Man's fedora is little more than a fuzzy blur in your so-called "clear full Moorman".

Crap..I haven't enhanced the Hatman and am unaware of any comparisons being made. Point out this aforementioned comparison. You can't because there was no comparison

And to wrap this up - while I do not recall where I posted this animation - it has been seen before and it shows the difference in sharpness in the good photographic copy of Moorman's print as seen in both Thompson's and Groden's books Vs. the drum scan that you (Duncan) have used. So it appears that the comparisons were done for you. (see below)

I have partial crops from those images, but the not the whole image and have said so in the past.

We can all get partial images from the internet which is where you got your selective coloured (BLACK) by photoshop copy which I have seen before on a website with nutty enhancements.

Actually, the images you speak of came from Groden and/or Thompson. Once again you have recklessly said something that was in error.

So the fact is that it matters little if I possess the best prints, but rather that they do exist and you have not posted where you have even attempted to see them other than asking me to produce them.

As I have said before, if you can't produce the good, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Duncan

So it seems that your position is like the the saying about not being able to get the horse to drink. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink it." In other words - despite you being told about there being better images that disprove your claim ... they don't really count if you can avoid doing what it takes to actually see them so to know better. In one post you said that you'd pay for what ever images I sent you .... probably because I had already said that I only had partial crops of those images. So why not make that offer to the people who do have them or would that be something you'd rather not do???

Bill

Edited July 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Even worse would be if one actually went to the 6th Floor Museum, contacted Mack, contacted Thompson, contacted Groden, or spoke to anyone else who had in their possession and/or have seen better prints only to discover that they have wasted an enormous amount of time posting about seeing a 'wash out' that never existed in the first place.

Bill Miller

Big words from someone who has repeatedly refused my request that he post these amazingly clear photographs which could win his case.

Where I come from, the prosecution submits evidence to kill off the defence. In this case, the defence has posted a clear full Moorman to prove it's point. The Miller prosecution team has come up with nothing other than stale hot windy air. If you have this amazing clear full copy of Moorman which you say shows the Skyline, then post it. I suspect you won't. Why?..You don't have it.

Duncan

Duncan,

If you've got a second, wonder if you'd glance at this:

On the question of Midget Man's firing problem, this shows the problem:

Now, you may have seen this Moorman? The red lines illustrate the trajectories possible.

Now, observe the placement of the alleged hat at the top of the fence:

Notice that the brim or the base of the hat is slightly below the level of the top

of the fence pickets or slat apex points.

The eyes of anyone wearing this hat would have to be slightly below the brim.

But, where's the rifle?

If you consider that man under the hat is aiming a rifle or XP-100, possibly

through or between the picket points, then it is clear that the hat must come up.

Note also that in order for a man wearing this hat to see & aim at the target,

the man's hat must be raised or elevated at least 6 inches from its position as seen

in the crop, for such a seeing & aiming to be possible.

This is understood if you consider that the target if looking at the sniper at the firing

moment would not have seen the crop of the hat as seen in the illustrations above.

On the contrary, the target would have seen only the top 1 inch of the hat (not the crop shown)

peeking up from behind the fence, because of the greater angle upward of the line of sight

target to rifle than the angle reflected from Moorman's camera shot.

JFK would have seen only 1 inch of the top of Midget Man's hat! The rest of the hat & it's wearer

would have been hidden (from JFK) by the fence as MM crouched down midget-wise.

Any way you look at it, Midget Man is shooting at wood.

Duncan Man is over the fence with his barrel by contrast.

Finally, the trajectory of Duncan Man tallies with the head movement. Midget Man's trajectory would

have pushed the head to the left, which pushing is not seen in Zapruder.

Thanks for considering this Duncan. Any thoughts?

Edited July 7, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

Concerning the smoke question, I was able to adjust a Bell frame by texture, hue & contrast level

enhancement tweaks without altering the geometry of objects or topographic benchmarks. The one

problem I could not remove was the brown lumpish artifact on the left, despite consulting with

Gary Mack. Mack's comment was: "Don't worry about it, it may be a shooter; you just can't prove it

on the available evidence." Does the artifact look familiar to you, Duncan?

Anyway, the smoke (upper red arrow) is obviously to the left of the Hudson tree! QED

I say let the response #342 stand in testimony as to the lack of seriousness you have involving the purpose of this forum and JFK's murder.

Bill Miller

I say, chill out Buddy. The best has YETI to come, get it?

Duncan

On the way, is it? This YETI? -- A word in your shell-like. Does it wear deoderant?