Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[Miles Scull]

A fudge has been attempted in claiming that Bell's stopping his camera inserted eon's of time elapse into the continuity time sequencing.

The continuity brake was only seconds.[/b]

Miles, you are making an XXX out of yourself for nothing. Check with Groden, Mack, or anyone else who actually has studied these films. Check the timing of the camera cars finally making it passed the knoll. You may recall that the motorcade had stopped momentarily. And just so you know ... you have used the term "eons of time" which can be construed to mean countless various periods of time. This part of the problem with you and your thinking Holland immediately ran off the underpass. Go to the photographical record and learn it - its time sequence - and then come back and intelligently debate the evidence if you like, but stop misstating the evidence when it is obvious that you have not bothered to check out any of the information being offered to you. This is supposed to be an "Education Forum" - not the Miles version of the "Gong Show". Sooner or later one of the administrators is going to see what you are doing and call you on it. Maybe Andy and John can open up a forum debate where no one needs to have the facts straight and can purposely just say anything regardless of its accuracy, but I don't think that is acceptable here.

Bill Miller

Duncan,

Just so this slur ("XXX") doesn't suddenly disappear.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Jack White]

I don't want to be accused, fer heavensake, of siding with "Miller".

But it is futile to make second-by-second calculations without solid

evidence...and then saying such calculations represent actuality.

Claiming to know what Holland meant by IMMEDIATELY is likewise

silly. He could have meant anywhere from 10 seconds to 110 seconds

...or longer.

Claiming that tiny shapeless black blobs atop the underpass in a

grainy badly exposed film represent a particular person is speculation.

Speculation is not research.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

Here is Miller's post:

"Miles, you are making an xxx out of yourself..." [/color][/size]

Funnily enough Debra banned me from Lancer for using the word. What I actually said was that Miller was xxx with Debra. In the U.K that means crawling, sucking up to, trying to gain favour. I didn't think I deserved to be banned for that, but Debra censors threads where she doesn't agree with some opinions and bans some people , ie me, who don't agree with her or her friends, ie Bill.

Anyway...I've said my piece...Let's get back on topic and not take the bait.

Duncan

"You asked me to review the Bell film for certain information. His first post-assassination sequence shows JFK in the underpass and his SS car just entering the shadow. Since it took 9 seconds for JFK to reach the underpass, and it only takes five seconds or less to drive through it, I would estimate the time to be +15 seconds at the most.

Using a frame blowup off the original film, I can see two men on the north end of the underpass near the fence. One is wearing a white shirt and the other, standing immediately to his left, is wearing a yellow shirt. Both men appear to be facing to the west at that moment.

As I mentioned on the phone, Dillard 3, shot from Elm & Houston from camera car 3 and looking toward the underpass, shows Sam Holland still on top of the underpass over the south lane. The timing of that picture has long been established as about 40 seconds or more after Z313. "

Duncan,

Above you find a quote from Gary Mack. Good point. However, Sam Holland was not the first runner to reach a view of the steam pipe. There were other runners ahead of Sam.

Be that as it may, my contention is that, as seen in the Bell film, the "two men on the north end of the underpass near the fence" are looking in the direction of the steam pipe at about 25 seconds after Z-313. They have been at their position as shown in Bell since 5 to 7 seconds after Z-313. Thus, they would have seen Ed's alleged rifle toss had it occurred as Ed describes. They did not report seeing anything. Were they SS or McVey & co-worker as I contend?

Also, to be remembered is that Bowers did not see Ed's sniper. Neither did the man standing a few feet from the steam pipe at 60 seconds after Z-313, as seen in the photo I posted above. No one saw what Ed saw from 265 yards away.

Finally, even if Sam ran to the steam pipe at even 60 seconds after Z-313, he & all the others would have noticed the assistant disassembling the rifle, because that action came in sequence after the toss, with the assistant walking to the switch box with exposed rifle in hand. A fudge has been attempted by trying to use Foster's report that someone told him that he (someone) had seen a man running up the RR tracks after the assassination. First of all, Ed said & pantomimed that the assistant WALKED away with a tool box. Second, if Ed's story never occurred, as is contended & proved on the logic, then that in no way precludes the occurrence of someone having been seen running along the tracks. Maybe that person was a RR worker or a frightened person or the actual assassin (!), etc., but that person was not an actor as described by Ed's story. That's the point.

Duncan, you must be asleep by now. Look forward to your thoughts on your morrow.

Miles

Edited July 20, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Bill Miller]

Duncan MacRae' date='Jul 18 2007, 11:34 PM' post='110443']

Maybe Andy and John can open up a forum debate where no one needs to have the facts straight and can purposely just say anything regardless of its accuracy, but I don't think that is acceptable here.

Bill Miller

You're way out of order Bill. You are trying to weasel in with the Admin on this forum just the same way you weaseled with Debs to get me banned from Lancer. You are directing the exact same call on Admin tactics towards Miles that you did on Lancer in an effort to get him banned or monitored.

Duncan,

If you and Miles spent half as much time researching the case instead of whining so much ... you'd not be making so many mistakes. By the way, here is what I said to Miles when using the word "XXX" ........... "Miles, you are making XX XXX XXX of yourself for nothing."

Now here is the dictionary meaning ....

Now does any of those definitions seem like they might come into play concerning the post Miles is making? Would not someone who misstates the record after it has been established that he is in fact mistaken on some things somewhat of a "silly" person? I think so!

I am on the side of the Miles facts in this thread, and on the side of truth. You continually call on people to only post facts. Miles has posted the facts as he sees them, and his research has been immaculate and accurate.

Really? What part was accurate ... the stuff he misstated before he even bothered to read Hoffman's book - the fact that he gave a time line of 15 seconds for Bell's pan back to the underpass because didn't know Bell had turned his camera off - or how about the part where he believed Holland went shaggin' butt off the underpass immediately after the shooting when Tom Dillard took a photo almost one minute after the fatal shot to JFK and that photo clearly shows Holland still at his post on the underpass??? Of course someone like yourself wouldn't know these things either if you haven't bothered to research them thoroughly.

The Bell film has no exact timing gap measurement, it's just a guess, and you damn well know it, so cut the crap and try posting with reference to the topic in hand instead of acting like an overgrown baby and calling on Admim for your dummy. Admin have already stated that they are monitoring this thread. All they need to do is go to Lancer and see the thread which got me banned to find out how devious you really are.

Duncan

There is a way to time stamp the photographical record, but one must first know it so to cross reference it. And yes, let everyone go to Lancer and read the comment you made to Debra Conway ... it won't take a genius to see why she sent you packing ... and to be honest - she would boot me or anyone else who said what you did. I even think she had tried to reason with you first of all, but you felt it necessary to keep saying things that any respectful woman would not put up with. But blame it on someone else if it makes you feel better ... it only makes you look bad.

Bill

Edited July 20, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Bill Miller]

Also, to be remembered is that Bowers did not see Ed's sniper. Neither did the man standing a few feet from the steam pipe at 60 seconds after Z-313, as seen in the photo I posted above. No one saw what Ed saw from 265 yards away.

I believe that most researchers would disagree with you on which sniper Bowers saw. In fact, as I said before - the Badge Man, nor the RR man figure doesn't match the description of clothing that Bowers gave .... I look forward to your and Duncan's thoughts on that as well.

It is also worth noting that Bowers didn't mention seeing a floating cop torso aiming a rifle at the President, so do you consider that to be another alleged sniper that Bowers didn't see or are you just limited to using such logic only when it applies to Hoffman .... I also look forward to your thoughts on that point, too.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

Here is Miller's post:

"Miles, you are making an xxx out of yourself..." [/color][/size]

Funnily enough Debra banned me from Lancer for using the word xxx. What I actually said was that Miller was xxx with Debra. In the U.K that means crawling, sucking up to, trying to gain favour. I didn't think I deserved to be banned for that, but Debra censors threads where she doesn't agree with some opinions and bans some people , ie me, who don't agree with her or her friends, ie Bill.

Anyway...I've said my piece...Let's get back on topic and not take the bait.

Duncan

"You asked me to review the Bell film for certain information. His first post-assassination sequence shows JFK in the underpass and his SS car just entering the shadow. Since it took 9 seconds for JFK to reach the underpass, and it only takes five seconds or less to drive through it, I would estimate the time to be +15 seconds at the most.

Using a frame blowup off the original film, I can see two men on the north end of the underpass near the fence. One is wearing a white shirt and the other, standing immediately to his left, is wearing a yellow shirt. Both men appear to be facing to the west at that moment.

As I mentioned on the phone, Dillard 3, shot from Elm & Houston from camera car 3 and looking toward the underpass, shows Sam Holland still on top of the underpass over the south lane. The timing of that picture has long been established as about 40 seconds or more after Z313. "

Duncan,

Above you find a quote from Gary Mack. Good point. However, Sam Holland was not the first runner to reach a view of the steam pipe. There were other runners ahead of Sam.

Be that as it may, my contention is that, as seen in the Bell film, the "two men on the north end of the underpass near the fence" are looking in the direction of the steam pipe at about 25 seconds after Z-313. They have been at their position as shown in Bell since 5 to 7 seconds after Z-313. Thus, they would have seen Ed's alleged rifle toss had it occurred as Ed describes. They did not report seeing anything. Were they SS or McVey & co-worker as I contend?

Also, to be remembered is that Bowers did not see Ed's sniper. Neither did the man standing a few feet from the steam pipe at 60 seconds after Z-313, as seen in the photo I posted above. No one saw what Ed saw from 265 yards away.

Finally, even if Sam ran to the steam pipe at even 60 seconds after Z-313, he & all the others would have noticed the assistant disassembling the rifle, because that action came in sequence after the toss, with the assistant walking to the switch box with exposed rifle in hand. A fudge has been attempted by trying to use Foster's report that someone told him that he (someone) had seen a man running up the RR tracks after the assassination. First of all, Ed said & pantomimed that the assistant WALKED away with a tool box. Second, if Ed's story never occurred, as is contended & proved on the logic, then that in no way precludes the occurrence of someone having been seen running along the tracks. Maybe that person was a RR worker or a frightened person or the actual assassin (!), etc., but that person was not an actor as described by Ed's story. That's the point.

Duncan, you must be asleep by now. Look forward to your thoughts on your morrow.

Miles

Duncan,

My advice is to simply disregard or ignore Miller.

Miller will only do what he has always done when it becomes clear to all the forum that he is losing or has lost a debate.

Miller always begins to personally attack & to abuse the person who is exposing Miller's research & positions as false & indefensible.

That Miller always does this is a matter of public forum record.

He has been repeatedly cautioned on this forum to desist from insulting other members.

He continues to thumb his nose at the moderators & at the members.

He makes a mockery of decency, which to me is a recall of Joe McCarthy at his worst.

If we ignore Miller, maybe, as Tosh Plumlee requested Miller do, maybe he will "go peddle concepts somewhere else."

Anything to arrest the degrading spectacle Miller makes of himself & of the forum!

If you do not reply to Miller then his role becomes that of an invader & interloper who is not wanted. Justice?

I will be interested to learn if you agree here, Duncan.

Miles

Edited July 20, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Antti Hynonen]

Due to the large number of complaints that I have received regarding this thread and due to the behavior of the main poster's of this thread I have decided to lock this thread.

I have e-mailed John Simkin regarding this issue yesterday but have not received a reply. I am assuming he is busy with other matters.

I am further asking my fellow administrators not to unlock this thread until John Simkin or Andy Walker will consider the re-opening of this thread and the placing of members in violation of Forum rules under permanent moderation. This feature requires administrator priviledges and to my knowledge this can not be done by a moderator.

Sincerely,

Antti Hynonen

[Antti Hynonen]

Now that other moderation controls are in place I have re-opened this thread. I hope that all posters of this thread (and others) remember the Forum rules and:

1) treat other members with respect

2) discuss relevant issues related to the topic

3) do not resort to name calling

If this is not possible, further administrative measures will be enforced.

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Bill!

Great to hear you are at last actually learning.

I know it's difficult for you but I am always happy to teach you - however long it takes!!

Reference Myers' 3D Image (?).

Perhaps the words written by you below will

refresh your failing memory......

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic

=10251&st=285

I know a little bit about 3D graphics from studying the

work of Dale Myers and your Moorman view looked like

something that Picasso had painted. The data you used in

your model is so far off that any images stemming from

that are merely fictitious and have nothing to do with

reality. As I said before - you have an elevated

perspective view on part of the picture and a level ground

view in other parts of it, thus making it totally

inaccurate.

Bill

It seems you are very fond of Myers' inaccurate and purported 3D image

which shows railway tracks on the car lot behind the picket fence

going directly towards the picket fence!!

Can you, in your vast wisdom of 3D Graphics, explain

the perspective of Myers' joke image?

You call this accurate?

Myers' image below has certainly nothing to do with reality.

Now I know the level of your undestanding of 3D Graphics is

very poor since you base your understanding on studies you have made of Myers

ridiculous and irrational so-called 3D Graphics.

EBC

[Bill Miller]

It is also worth noting that Bowers didn't mention seeing a floating cop torso aiming a rifle at the President.

Bill

It's also worth noting that Bowers didn't mention seeing a circus midget jump 2 ft in the air, hold his position in mid air, and aim a rifle at the president...

Duncan

I really do not know why you keep talking about the Hat Man as if he was a circus midget. In the Zapruder film there are several examples of how far people moved within just 4/18's of a second and Jackie's rising up out of her seat and onto the trunk of the limo is one of them. With Moorman looking uphile at the fence and her photo coming 4/18's of a second after the fatal shot was fired .... Hat Man moving back from the fence even a mere foot would cause his head to drop over the top of the fence like watching the sun set over the horizon. I feel that once the true timeline of Moorman's photo is understood, then the midget remarks will be better understood as to why they are unfounded IMO.

Also, I cannot recall what thread I mentioned the photo below in, but I found it. This photo shows the variance in peoples sizes from person to person.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Also, I cannot recall what thread I mentioned the photo below in, but I found it. This photo shows the variance in peoples sizes from person to person.

Bill Miller

Don't always believe what you see

Duncan

Duncan,

I showed this to Miller a while ago. Miller thought that the distant rectangle was larger than the rectangle in the foreground.

What does this tell you?

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

I showed this to Miller a while ago. Miller thought that the distant rectangle was larger than the rectangle in the foreground.

What does this tell you?

Miles,

You left out some information that I had to assume and if I was right, then you are wrong.

If the pegs are all of the same height and the grid lines are all of equal distance apart, then the closer rectangle shaped box is not as wide as the further away one, nor is it as tall. This would be like looking from atop of a building and seeing that one building is no taller then the street lamps on the street and yet the more distant building is many times taller then the street lamps and saying they are of the same size. The grid appears to be drawn in relation to a vanishing point. That would mean that in reality the width of one lane is as wide near the camera as it is far away.

Now if the pegs on the grid get smaller, then and only then could one make such a claim that both rectangles are of equal height. After all, we were talking about perspective and the real world such as seen in the plaza photographs.

Bill Miller

Edited September 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

I showed this to Miller a while ago. Miller thought that the distant rectangle was larger than the rectangle in the foreground.

What does this tell you?

Miles,

You left out some information that I had to assume and if I was right, then you are wrong.

If the pegs are all of the same height and the grid lines are all of equal distance apart, then the closer rectangle shaped box is not as wide as the further away one, nor is it as tall. This would be like looking from atop of a building and seeing that one building is no taller then the street lamps on the street and yet the more distant building is many times taller then the street lamps and saying they are of the same size. The grid appears to be drawn in relation to a vanishing point. That would mean that in reality the width of one lane is as wide near the camera as it is far away.

Now if the pegs on the grid get smaller, then and only then could one make such a claim that both rectangles are of equal height. After all, we were talking about perspective and the real world such as seen in the plaza photographs.

Bill Miller

But, the black rectangles were added to the two dimensional surface of the three dimensional drawing of the receding lines by use of one rubber ink stamp.

The stamp was pressed twice.

Thus, the black rectangles are the same size, not, as you said, of different sizes.

[Bill Miller]

But, the black rectangles were added to the two dimensional surface of the three dimensional drawing of the receding lines by use of one rubber ink stamp.

The stamp was pressed twice.

Thus, the black rectangles are the same size, not, as you said, of different sizes.

Miles,

I thought we were talking 'perspective' and in a sense they can be the same size if you take the 3D factor away, but when the 'laws of perspective' are applied to the image as a whole - they are not the same size. They may cover the same amount of surface space on the image, but one is represented as being much taller than the pegs and wider than the lanes, thus one is larger in reality than the other.

The opposite could be achieved by holding a photo of Teddy Roosevelt's Mt. Rushmore image in front of a camera so to make it look like the same size of Teddy's actual face on Mt. Rushmore as seen in the distance. The two faces may appear to be the same size, but in reality by applying the laws of perspective - they are not.

Nice try, but that game doesn't play in Peoria.

Bill Miller

Edited September 29, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Evan Burton]

While you are talking about illusions, here is another - one of my favourites.

Believe it or not, the squares marked A and B are exactly the same colour.

Check it for yourself with photoshop, or make a colour printout of it and fold the paper so that the squares are next to each other.