Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[Miles Scull]

Thanks Eugene, Magnificent work and presentation.

Duncan

Great work, EBC! Thanks, too.

Miles

[Bill Miller]

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

EBC,

I cannot help but smile at the fact that you have tried to make a 3D model to help test the things I have said, which I applaud you for. However, your model is not accurate in many ways.

In the second image you have the two cycles riding on the same plane when the camera is allegedly looking downward at the car ... this means that your data put into your model is incorrect. The cycles should always stack upward in the photo when the camera is angled downward at the scene. (The Hargis and Martin cycles stack upward in that image ... the distant two cycles do not)

Your view of the wall and the knoll is so far off and contradicts the cycle riders I just described. The space between the fence and the wall is so visible that one would have to have quite an elevated view so to have the base of the fence running higher then the top of the wall in their field of view. Now maybe Duncan mentioning "Picasso's" name might have been appropriate in this instance, but he failed to do so. To recap: One portion of the view shows two cycles being viewed from a slightly elevated position - the other two cycles are being seen from a level plane - and the knoll at the wall to the fence from an extremely higher elevated position. If the data within a 3D model is correct, then these things should not occur and should remain balanced.

Now having pointed out some obvious flaws in the model that Miles and Duncan quickly embraced as "great" and "magnificent" .... your showing how perspective should work in the first example isn't all that bad for the basic principles are there. Your "perspective lines" in the first image are the closest to being accurate. The perspective lines looking back at the fence in the other three examples would make the shooters head as big as a section of fence and I don't think you want to take that position. So let us use the first example that shows a view from the fence.

In the first view it appears that the red 'perspective lines' leading back to the fence would show a head size at the fence of about the width of 5 or 6 wooden slats, while JFK's head on the same 2D image is smaller than one fence slat. This is how perspective works.

The vast decrease in size of JFK's head in EBC's field of view is quite obvious. The problem is and always has been is that Duncan's alleged shooter outline doesn't show this decreased sizing on Mary's 2D photograph. I have explained this as well as I can and I have invited Duncan to seek the expertise of someone who understands perspective like an art teacher or a photographer, but Duncan hasn't appeared interested in hearing from someone with such expertise. So now I will invite you or anyone else who doesn't seem to understand the points I have repeatedly made to contact such a person to verify or deny the laws of perspective that I have described.

I once again show Duncan's outline against that of the men on the steps and I fail to see the ratio of size decreasing happening that is anything like that in your first 3D image illustration, so how do you believe that you helped Duncan's position?

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.

We do not have to worry about concealed heads or anyone breaking cover for Duncan outlined HIS alleged assassin. It is the size of that outline (as seen on Moorman's 2D image) against peoples heads who are much closer to the camera that has been the problem. (see below)

Bill Miller

Edited June 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[T. Folsom]

I am stunned at the level of lunacy on this site. Are you people for real or is this an elaborate joke? Do some of you seriously think a gunman fired at the president's motorcade from the right front? I'm speechless. Is there NOTHING that you people won't believe? There is not one scrap of hard evidence, not one speck that points to a right front gunman. NOTHING!!!

Let me be the first to point out---the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

ALL wounds to Kennedy originated from the right rear. There is no evidence of any front entrance wounds. I am literally left dumbfounded that there are adults, who can read books and drive cars and go on dates with girls who still believe in all of this conspiracy hogwash.

I fear the future of critical, logical thought in the world is doomed.

[Charles Drago]

I am literally left dumbfounded that there are adults, who can read books and drive cars and go on dates with girls who still believe in all of this conspiracy hogwash.

Hey Terry,

Hey Myra,

Wanna double-date?

I'll find a girl for me, but one of you will have to drive because I've got some reading to do in the back seat. We'll start with drinks ... if you're both old enough, of course.

All I ask is, no convertibles, please.

The Hogwasher

[Bill Miller]

I am stunned at the level of lunacy on this site. Are you people for real or is this an elaborate joke? Do some of you seriously think a gunman fired at the president's motorcade from the right front? I'm speechless. Is there NOTHING that you people won't believe? There is not one scrap of hard evidence, not one speck that points to a right front gunman. NOTHING!!!

Let me be the first to point out---the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

ALL wounds to Kennedy originated from the right rear. There is no evidence of any front entrance wounds. I am literally left dumbfounded that there are adults, who can read books and drive cars and go on dates with girls who still believe in all of this conspiracy hogwash.

I fear the future of critical, logical thought in the world is doomed.

I have a question ... If we were sitting in a house and off in a nearby room you heard a loud gunshot and then saw smoke drifting from the room. Then as you approached the room you could smell the distinct odor of burnt gunpowder. If someone was to tell you that there was absolutely no evidence of a shot being fired from that room ... would your position still be the same as the reply you gave to this thread?

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Nice reply Bill..Ok, back to biz.

Your last copy and paste of the shooter to the Hudson location is misleading and not to scale, it is larger than the actual size. Here is the correctly scaled shooter's head brought down to the stepmans location. If you crop head area in the red area of your last posted image you'll get the same result. As you will see, the head is perspectively sound.

Duncan

Duncan,

If you are talking about the "outline man" in post #238, then you are wrong as usual. If one takes that figure from the actual 'Duncan outline' and fits its surrounding reference points over the top of your image, then it is to scale IMO.

And for the last time ... even if the head you outlined was only half of what you have drawn in - IT WOULD STILL BE TOO BIG! Don't take my word for it .... show it to someone with expertise in perspective depth. Newman wasn't 15 to 20 feet from McKinnon and he and his wife's head got considerably smaller when dealing with a real photo and real 'perspective depth'. YOUR figure would be twice the distance apart as Newman and McKinnon was from each other, so apply that to your floating head and see how it works out.

You can refuse to seek out people experienced in perspective to avoiding hearing that you have been wrong from them, but it won't change anything because those rules are solid. Anyone can merely state that the head size in the outline is of normal size, but when applying the field of depth to the perspective issue, then the head size isn't even close to where it needs to be.

Bill Miller

Edited June 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You can refuse to seek out people experienced in perspective to avoiding hearing that you have been wrong from them, but it won't change anything because those rules are solid. Anyone can merely state that the head size in the outline is of normal size, but when applying the field of depth to the perspective issue, then the head size isn't even close to where it needs to be.

Bill Miller[/b]

In this thread, 2 people have supported the head being perspectively correct, Zero people have supported the head being perspectively wrong.

You are the one who has challenged the perspective. You are the one who has failed to prove your challenge. Until you can prove your case, Forum opinion wins.

Duncan

I will consider the sources for that statement above. Could it be that the remaining people deem your claim so silly that they don't even waste their time posting to it?

Below is once again two crops taken from real world assassination photos. The distance between the subjects referenced with red lines is about the same in both photographs. Note the ratio of head shrinkage that occurred on film because of the increased distance one subject was from the camera compared to the other. These distances are only half of the increased distance that the Duncan outline shooter was from the men on the steps. This means that Duncan's alleged outline of a shooter should be even smaller .... twice as small as Newman's head in each photograph, but Duncan's outline shows very little shrinkage (if any).

Bill

Edited June 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[T. Folsom]

Duncan's outline shows very little shrinkage (if any).

Bill

Garbage..I'll post the true comparison again and let the forum decide if there is any shrinkage or not.

Duncan

You folks are all deluded. I still am speechless. The wounds to Kennedy's head did not originate from the right front. The Zapruder film does not show ANY evidence of a left read exit wound, the president's head does not reveal any evidence of a left read exit wound, if (for arguments sake) there WAS a right-front gunman then we know (based on the evidence) that they missed Kennedy, they also missed Connally, they also missed Mrs. Kennedy, they missed Mrs. Conally, they missed the vehicle, they missed everyone on the other side of Elm street.

Sounds like quite the gunman you guys have invented. Remember that even your darling Cyril Wecht admitted that there is NO EVIDENCE of any shots striking the president from the right front.

You guys are living in a bizarre dream world of unreality.

Edited June 27, 2007 by T. Folsom

[Bill Miller]

Duncan's outline shows very little shrinkage (if any).

Bill

Garbage..I'll post the true comparison again and let the forum decide if there is any shrinkage or not.

Duncan

Duncan, people come from miles around just to hear me talk about making transparency overlays. If there is any variance in my illustration, then the naked eye sure as hell won't see it. And please stop confusing 'any shrinkage' with the vast amount needed to make your ridiculous cartoon seem even plausible. It's bad enough that you invented the term 'washout' so to explain why the Dallas sky is seen between the top of the fence to the bottom of the tree foliage where you position the floating outline, but neither Bowers or Hoffman place a person at that location ... let alone assumably one standing on a car in the RR yard. Your term 'washout' came from you looking at a faded Moorman print.

The fact Gary Mack has seen the original photo and the best prints made of the Moorman photo, and he has told you that the light area between the bottom of the foliage to the top of the fence is Dallas sky, seems to be totally ignored by you on top of the other evidence against your claim. The print you use is badly faded and the clarity for detail suffers terribly. So when you talk about a 'washout', then you are referring to that which you see in an inferior print. It's like arguing that when looking through a dirty window that you can see a figure that isn't there when the window is wiped clean. So which is the more reliable - what can be interpreted on a badly faded print or what can be interpreted on the better print? Who chooses the lesser quality prints for reliability over the prints before fading took place??

Your interpretation has failed on several levels and I believe that you know this and is why you'll not seek out someone with any expertise in the matter so not to have it recorded that they reached the same conclusion as I did.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

You folks are all deluded. I still am speechless. The wounds to Kennedy's head did not originate from the right front.

In post #239, you started out saying that there was no evidence of a shot being fired from the right front. In your next response you are more defined by saying that no wounds to JFK were caused from a shot from the right front. In both replies you failed to offer anything remotely detailed in support of your opinion. You also failed to address the scenario I offered up in my previous response to you. If you are serious about your position, then I ask that you take my questions serious enough to answer them if you can.

Bill

[T. Folsom]

You folks are all deluded. I still am speechless. The wounds to Kennedy's head did not originate from the right front.

In post #239, you started out saying that there was no evidence of a shot being fired from the right front. In your next response you are more defined by saying that no wounds to JFK were caused from a shot from the right front. In both replies you failed to offer anything remotely detailed in support of your opinion. You also failed to address the scenario I offered up in my previous response to you. If you are serious about your position, then I ask that you take my questions serious enough to answer them if you can.

Bill

ALL medical panels that have examined the forensic evidence (Warren Commission, Autopsy doctors, Clark Panel, HSCA team) ALL agreed that ALL wounds to the president originated from behind. The back wound revealed that the fibers on Kennedy's clothing was pushed INWARD on the back and the shirt and tie showed fibers pushed OUTWARD on the front. In addition the wound to the president's back was consistent with an ENTRANCE wound with the abrasion collar.

The head wound showed INWARD beveling on the back of the president's head- typical of an ENTRANCE wound. There was NO BEVELING surrounding the wound to the RIGHT-FRONT of the president's head. That is why even the darling of the conspiracy community, Cyril Wecht, was forced to maintain his professional reliability and admit that ALL available evidence pointed to NO entrance wounds coming from the front.

Additionally, if a shooter DID fire from the front and strike Kennedy (even though NO EVIDENCE supports this irrational suspicision,) let's just assume there were a shot from the front. Why then were all the bullet fragments found in the front seat of the limousine? Why weren't the fragments found on the road to the left rear?

This being said, your suspicions of a shooter located to the right front are moot and without ANY need for serious response.

[Alan Healy]

..............

It was only after the picture was taken did I then ask the test subjects where they ended up. The result was consistent within a step of where Arnold said he stood during the shooting.

You are confused Bill.

Arnold never said he stood behind the wall, ever.

The only reason he was placed there by the producers of "TMWKK" was so that it would line up with the cartoon like figure above the wall in the Moorman5 blow-ups.

Great for a televisual story-line but not so good for truthseekers.

The above fact is well known now & it's a shame that you have to keep repeating these half-truths, you must realise that they mean nothing to people who have taken an interest in this alleged witness's story.

It is also now known that "Allegedly Arnold" seems to have had a hard time remembering exactly where he did stand on the day of the murder, although it has been noted that he at least once pinned down his position as somewhere between the fence & the steps.

Not between the fence & the wall, in fact, no mention ever of the wall. Strange? No.

That is why he is seen standing "in the shadow of a tree" in the original Golz article because that was the only place Golz figured Arnold could of been if he was telling the truth, in the shadows & undetectable in the photos.

If he was behind the wall he would of mentioned it & Golz would of reasoned that maybe that is why he is not seen in any of the photos, the wall could of hid him, no need for shadows.

He never did, he wasn't behind the wall, the character/cartoon figure of Arnold in Moorman5 is not trustworthy enough to base a theory on.

The foundations of the Arnold "story" are the words of the man himself & in what he said he never, not once mentioned the "retaining wall".

Also,

Arnold said he stood on a mound of dirt

If you believe in this "mound if dirt", then you surely must agree that the limo stopped.

You have to.

Here we have one(unconfirmed) witness who said he stood on an(uncormirmed) mound of dirt on the knoll.

Just one guy, yet you believe it.

Then we have the witnesses who claimed the limo stopped.

How many actually used the word "stopped"? Ten? Fifteen? More?

Yet you don't believe it.

You get the point. This "mound of dirt" remark is practically worthless.

FWIW

Alan

[T. Folsom]

You folks are all deluded. I still am speechless. The wounds to Kennedy's head did not originate from the right front.

In post #239, you started out saying that there was no evidence of a shot being fired from the right front. In your next response you are more defined by saying that no wounds to JFK were caused from a shot from the right front. In both replies you failed to offer anything remotely detailed in support of your opinion. You also failed to address the scenario I offered up in my previous response to you. If you are serious about your position, then I ask that you take my questions serious enough to answer them if you can.

Bill

Well let's provide some evidence for you.

1. ALL doctors involved in the autopsy of President Kennedy agreed that there was NO EVIDENCE of any frontal entry wounds based on the following:

a. Kennedy's clothing revealed INWARD fibers on the back and OUTWARD fibers on the tie and shirt on the front.

b. The back wound revealed an abrasion collar that was consistent with an entrance wound and NOT consistent with any exit wound.

2. The Clark Comission agreed in its medical findings--NO evidence of rear exit wounds and no evidence of frontal entrance wounds.

3. The HSCA agreed. No evidence of any wounds entering the president from any location other than the right rear.

4. The head wound revealed inward beveling on the back and NO inward beveling on the front, which is 100% consistent with REAR entrance wounds and 100% inconsistent with exit wounds.

5. The bullet fragments were found IN FRONT of Kennedy's head on the front floor of the Limousine--again completely 100% INCONSISTENT with a shot from the right front.

6. NO fragments were found on the road to the left rear of Kennedy which is where one would expect to find the bullet fragments if a shooter was firing from the right front location

7. NO bullet fragments or damage was seen in the x-rays of Kennedy's brain which one WOULD expect to see if a shot had entered the right frontal lobe and exited the left rear of the head.

8. The Zapruder film does NOT reveal ANY exit wound to the left rear of the President's head.

9. The Nix film agrees with no evidence of left-side exit wound.

10. The Muchmore film also agrees.

11. The Moorman photograph also agrees.

There. Is that enough evidence.

Those points being made, your imagined gunman behind the stockade fence is now moot. There is NO evidence that anyone was firing from that location, therefore giving serious consideration to your boundless claim is unnecessary.

[Paul Rigby]

...people come from miles around just to hear me talk about making transparency overlays.

Marvellous.

[Alan Healy]

Back side of he wall. The further back from the corner of the wall towards the fence on a LOS from Moorman's location - the ground rises.

Bill Miller

Bill,

if you have Mark Lane's "RTJ" on tape you can watch a section of the Secret Service reconstruction.

If you don't have it handy maybe you can ask Gary Mack to take a look at it for you.

This dip in the soil at the corner of the wall was not there in '63.

You can see it clearly in the SS footage.

The ground was flat & the grass well manicured & you can only see this by watching the moving footage, any captures I get from the film itself do not do it justice.

.

The "dip" seen in Groden's photo was due to soil erosion nothing more.

And please don't remind of Gary's "idea" that this "slope" was put there deliberatly to create a run-off for the rain. If hGary had any indepth experience in construction or groundwork he would never have made such a remark.

(If anyone is wondering why this fact that the ground was flat in '63 is of import to me it is because this is exactly where Blackdogman was crouching, important to me, not important to you).

As for "the ground rises" statement, remind us to what evidence you are refering to that leads you to this conclusion.

While your at it you can remind us why BDM appears to be crouching in Betzner3 even though your theory has him like, ten feet west of the wall.

Remember Betzner's camera was almost level with the top of the wall when he took his infamous third photo(if anything, slightly above it Gary said).

Alan