Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

This completes my research on this part of my study

of the Duncan's shooter's head image.

Thanks Ed for your input. Very interesting.

Eugene

Edited July 3, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Bill Miller]

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?

The fence slats were 3.5 inches in width according to Groden. The fence has been replaced several times over since the assassination and the newer slats are not the same. The average human face is between 8 to 10 inches in width. Gary Mack did a study on the fence in the late 90's. Gary wrote: " .... from research I did in 1995 and 1997.

The knoll stockade fence slats were 3" wide. The metal support posts were 80-84 inches apart on the parking lot side, but most were 81" apart. I did not make notes about specific distances for each post and all the posts have since been replaced in slightly different location. Initially, when the fence was installed a few years before the assassination, it was built with Michigan White Cedar wood, which was purchased in Dallas at Sears."

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.

The image doesn't help - the fence has been replaced since the assassination. What might help is to watch the Lane/Holland interview showing close-ups of Holland's face up by the fence.

Bill

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

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?

The fence slats were 3.5 inches in width according to Groden. The fence has been replaced several times over since the assassination and the newer slats are not the same. The average human face is between 8 to 10 inches in width. Gary Mack did a study on the fence in the late 90's. Gary wrote: " .... from research I did in 1995 and 1997.

The knoll stockade fence slats were 3" wide. The metal support posts were 80-84 inches apart on the parking lot side, but most were 81" apart. I did not make notes about specific distances for each post and all the posts have since been replaced in slightly different location. Initially, when the fence was installed a few years before the assassination, it was built with Michigan White Cedar wood, which was purchased in Dallas at Sears."

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.

The image doesn't help - the fence has been replaced since the assassination. What might help is to watch the Lane/Holland interview showing close-ups of Holland's face up by the fence.

Bill

Bill,

You're up to your old tricks again!

You are using your old

ploys. Why this sudden preoccupation with 'slats' and 'slat widths'?

These diversionary tactics don't cut it any more, Bill.

You old twister!

Here are a few images to add to your collection of

slat images.

I bet you collect them!

You sad, sad person!

Bye, Bill!

EBC

Edited July 4, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

You're up to your old tricks again!

You are using your old

ploys. Why this sudden preoccupation with 'slats' and 'slat widths'?

These diversionary tactics don't cut it any more, Bill.

You old twister!

Here are a few images to add to your collection of

slat images. I bet you collect them!

You sad, sad person!

Bye, Bill!

EBC

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

Edited July 4, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bernice Moore]

""The fence slats were 3.5 inches in width according to Groden. The fence has been replaced several times over since the assassination and the newer slats are not the same. The average human face is between 8 to 10 inches in width. Gary Mack did a study on the fence in the late 90's. Gary wrote: " .... from research I did in 1995 and 1997.

The knoll stockade fence slats were 3" wide. The metal support posts were 80-84 inches apart on the parking lot side, but most were 81" apart. I did not make notes about specific distances for each post and all the posts have since been replaced in slightly different location. Initially, when the fence was installed a few years before the assassination, it was built with Michigan White Cedar wood, which was purchased in Dallas at Sears.""

Bill:

Could I ask you a couple of questions..

Gary says the metal support posts poles were approx 8o to 84 inches or so apart..most being 81inches.

In the photos I am enclosing below,

Sam and Mark Lane are seen somewhere approximately where Sam the smoke that day.... drift out from the fence..

from the other side of Elm St.

This would be in the area of approximately the third from the corner upright fence post....and would be approx.in the

range of 23 to 25 feet from the corner of the fence....

In the photo of Sam approaching the gas pipe......In this we see, what appears to be the fence metal poles upright

standing out as you peer down the fence line....each being approx 81 inches or so apart...

The third photo approximately where he and Mark Lane stood looking out towards the original lamp post, and sign.

Correct.?...Thanks for a reply...

B...

Edited July 5, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Bill Miller]

""The fence slats were 3.5 inches in width according to Groden. The fence has been replaced several times over since the assassination and the newer slats are not the same. The average human face is between 8 to 10 inches in width. Gary Mack did a study on the fence in the late 90's. Gary wrote: " .... from research I did in 1995 and 1997.

The knoll stockade fence slats were 3" wide. The metal support posts were 80-84 inches apart on the parking lot side, but most were 81" apart. I did not make notes about specific distances for each post and all the posts have since been replaced in slightly different location. Initially, when the fence was installed a few years before the assassination, it was built with Michigan White Cedar wood, which was purchased in Dallas at Sears.""

Bill:

Could I ask you a couple of questions..

Gary says the metal support posts poles were approx 8o to 84 inches or so apart..most being 81inches.

In the photos I am enclosing below,

Sam and Mark Lane are seen somewhere approximately where Sam the smoke that day.... drift out from the fence..

from the other side of Elm St.

This would be in the area of approximately the third from the corner upright fence post....and would be approx.in the

range of 23 to 25 feet from the corner of the fence....

In the photo of Sam approaching the gas pipe......In this we see, what appears to be the fence metal poles upright

standing out as you peer down the fence line....each being approx 81 inches or so apart...

The third photo approximately where he and Mark Lane stood looking out towards the original lamp post, and sign.

Correct.?...Thanks for a reply...

B...

Bernice,

The measurements that Gary had given pertaining to the spacing of the fence post were how he found them in the year he measured them. I believe Gary may have told me that the fence and post had been replaced by then and that the original spacing of the post may have been different than how they were at the time of the assasination. I will check that information with Gary again later today if it helps. It was the fence slats that Gary feels are standard and had not changed in width.

The Holland location in Lane's interview: If one looks at Moorman's photo at the Hat Man location they will notice that from Moorman's angle the Hat Man looks to be almost under the second small tree from the eastmost corner of the fence. The exact same small tree is where I see Holland in the Lane interview. This tells me that Holland chose the Hat Man location for where he believed a shot had come from.

The fence is 5' tall. (black line) The three red lines are of equal length to the black line. Holland is 2.5 red lines from the corner of the fence, which is somewhere around 13 feet from what I can approximate.

Bill

Edited July 5, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

Can you explain the " Dallas Skyline" in the area which I have illustrated, which to my eyes apparently cuts straight through the arrowed tree? This is the exact same "washout" anomaly as seen in Moorman at my shooters location. Please explain the logic of these anomalies if you can.

Duncan

Great question, Duncan and let's see if I can answer that for you by showing you an example of what I have been saying for years now. Let us start by comparing your illustration to the actual film it was taken from. Here is the link to Holland's interview showing the same view, but much sharper.

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

Note how the color tones blend together. As Lane and Holland make it to the steam pipe - the green tree foliage of the distant tree near the Badge Man location, along with the wood color of the fence, along with the color of the mens faces all seem to look alike. As the camera is panned back from the knoll as Holland and Lane stand at the fence - the trees seem somewhat faded and not very clear - dark spots seen in places while other areas seem to be missing (washed out as you have put it), but when the camera zooms in - what is actually there becomes more apparent.

As with the drum scan of Moorman's print - it has faded over time and has lost its clarity. This is why I have asked that people not totally rely on an inferior print, but rather look at good prints and/or the scans from the original so to allow themselves the best views to make their interpretations from. The Holland still is not as sharp as the film - the blurred still looks like a washout occurred in places whereas the sharper film does not.

Bill

Edited July 5, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

So...Do you believe in theory that same priciples which you have described could have applied to Moorman, ficticiously in principle, that if Moorman had been a film and not a single photograph, then a zoom in to the specific area in later frames could have yielded a similar result as a zoom in on the Holland film? [/b]Duncan

No, being a film has little to do with it. If Moorman of had a zoom on her camera and used it for that area, then the image would be better. And don't let the point get brushed under the rug whereas the original or best film prints (movie or still) offer the best views over multi-generational prints. The Holland still was not as sharp as seeing the film on "Youtube.com" because it was a step or so from the actual film it was taken from. We could blow up that still capture of Holland as seen from a distance and it would remain blurred.

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

Edited July 5, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

So...Do you believe in theory that same priciples which you have described could have applied to Moorman, ficticiously in principle, that if Moorman had been a film and not a single photograph, then a zoom in to the specific area in later frames could have yielded a similar result as a zoom in on the Holland film? [/b]Duncan

No, being a film has little to do with it. If Moorman of had a zoom on her camera and used it for that area, then the image would be better. And don't let the point get brushed under the rug whereas the original or best film prints (movie or still) offer the best views over multi-generational prints. The Holland still was not as sharp as seeing the film on "Youtube.com" because it was a step or so from the actual film it was taken from. We could blow up that still capture of Holland as seen from a distance and it would remain blurred.

Bill

A politicians answer as I expected. I have the film on cd, and I can assure you it is much sharper than the Youtube film. I can also assure you that the "whitewash" is still there cutting through the tree in this sharper than the Youtube version. As I said, your answer was reasonable, but in error, and probably not having seen the Sharper than Youtube version I can excuse you from thinking that what you are seeing as blur would also be blurred in the original film..it's not. Now back to the question now that you have the knowledge that the original film is unblurred. What could be the cause of the whitewas effect?

Duncan

Duncan ... were you talking about my reply to you or yours to me when it came to sounding like a politician ... because I don't know what it is that you were trying to say? I mean, it is nice that you have a better print than what is on Youtube.com, but I referenced it because the capture posted in this thread was not as clear as seeing Youtube's version. The point that I thought that I made quite clear was that the closest copies to the original are generally the clearest for seeing detail. The exception could be from being shot out of focus.

And before you tell me that your capture is from your CD and how your CD version is clearer than 'Youtubes.com' ... the illustration image that was used in this thread is a good example of how definition is lost as a photo is removed even further from its original.

Bill

[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

[Bill Miller]

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

Chris,

I thought about this in the past and the only way I can see Holland being correct in that the car was near the lamppost - would be from the view from on top of the underpass from where Sam was during the shooting. That pushes the car back up Elm Vs. the perpendicular view from what they had at the fence.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I can't see what it is that you find so difficult to understand.

1./ The best Moorman shows the whitewash effect at the area concerned. If you don't agree, post a copy with no whitewash.

And to think you said I sound like a politician. The "best" Moorman you are using is so bad that the Hat Man is a faint fuzzy blob - and Arnold and Badge Man are almost non-existent. So yes, I believe I have posted previously that one could think the image is washed out and it very well may be, but I said that this was the reason that one should validate their conlusion by talking to those who have seen the best prints or handled the original because in those better images it is the Dallas sky seen through the tree openings.

2./ The best Holland/Lane shots show a whitewash area at the point indicated in a sharp copy on CD which I have.

Conclusion......Both show a photographic whitewash anomaly as sky can not cut through the front of solid objects.

Duncan[/b]

I find your thoughts amazing. I can see the sky in the 'Youtube.com version and you say your best copy shows the same areas to be washed out. So it seems that the worst and best prints you have show the area between the fence and the foliage to be washed out and the one with medium clarity shows the sky. Interesting.

Bill

Edited July 5, 2007 by Bill Miller

[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

Edited July 5, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

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.

Wasn't it the location of the shot sounding off and the smoke that was seen that got Holland to go to that spot where cthey looked for casings and not the other way around? While I can imagine someone stating what you did - I cannot see them being serious about it because there were other men on the underpass who also saw and heard the same thing that Holland witnessed.

Bill

Edited July 5, 2007 by Bill Miller