Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[Miles Scull]

Bill, Your reply is asinine & pompous bombast! As Kathy notes.

The man who is the researcher par excellence, beside whom you are a midget researcher, Gary Mack, who has seen all the data for decades, has abandoned Ed as credible. Care to slander him? Bill, are you a fraidy cat without a bio? Maybe Kathy will enforce the Forum rule?

It has been written, "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.” Rene

Dahinden, August 1999.

Rene Dahinden has got his facts straight, Bill, unfortunately you do not.

Let's see.

Miles, your argument isn't with me, but rather with the photos and films showing the RR yard immediately after the assassination. You can start with the photo of the butts laying on the ground between the car and the fence. That is not to say that there were not cars parked close to one another, but he didn't say they were butted up against the stockade fence. You seem to like to argue about things that you really have no knowledge of ... first take the time to view as much of the photographical record as possible and then base your opinions on what you have seen and not on what you think you know.

Bill

Miles, your argument isn't with me, but rather with the photos and films showing the RR yard immediately after the assassination.

Ding, Ding. Wrong. The existence of cigarette butts at the picket fence shows that at that area there was a very narrow standing space at one small ten foot long stretch of the fence. There was mud found on the bumper of a car at that locus which suggests that someone feeling cramped needed to stand on that bumper in order to lean against the fence. In other words, anyone contending that this cramped & very confined mini space overthrows & refutes Holland's claim that the parking lot was jammed solid with cars will soon become the "Butt" of his own joke.

You can start with the photo of the butts laying

I think you mean "lying," don't you?

on the ground between the car and the fence. That is not to say that there were not cars parked close to one another, but he

he? Of course, you mean Sam Holland?

didn't say they were butted up against the stockade fence.

Ah ha, ding ding. Here your counter makes a mockery of your supposition. No, Sam did not say that the cars were butted up against the fence. However, what he does say certainly gives the very strong impression that the cars were in fact butted up against the fence. What you have failed to consider (deliberately?) is the obvious & clear implication of Holland's account of the circumstances of his movement through the parking lot. Holland was in a hurry to reach the sniper's spot. He was looking for the sniper. What, of course, would Holland (or anyone else) have done had he seen a clear & open passage along the fence, between the fence & the line of parked cars? Right, Holland would have skipped right up along the fence. Just as Ed's phantom sniper had glided down that path for Ed's Great Rifle Toss. After all, the fence hugging path would have been the only open path as Holland says that every other pathway was obstructed by the jam of cars. So, the preponderance of concrete evidence strongly supports a conclusion that there was no free passage by & along the fence as would have been required by a hurrying phantom sniper on a toss mission because at least some (even one!) of the parked cars did in fact abut against the fence as would have been natural & expected.

You seem to like to argue about things that you really have no knowledge of ...

It is now clear that Bill has no real in depth knowledge or reasoning ability. Yet Bill accuses others of his own deficiencies.

first take the time to view as much of the photographical record as possible and then base your opinions on what you have seen and not on what you think you know.

This is advice that Bill should give himself. Instead of belittling others in order to inflate his ego & delusions of grandeur as a great researcher. I rather suspect that Bill is always having a secret snigger with himself about others being trolls, as Bill knows that he, himself, is the real closet xxxxx. That's obvious from his ludicrous carping at others who do not share his pet ideas & from his generally snide tone which sparks conlict among members.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Rene Dahinden has got his facts straight, Bill, unfortunately you do not.

Let's see.

I have three seconds to spare ... supposed you tell me all you know on the subject.

Ding, Ding. Wrong. The existence of cigarette butts at the picket fence shows that at that area there was a very narrow standing space at one small ten foot long stretch of the fence. There was mud found on the bumper of a car at that locus which suggests that someone feeling cramped needed to stand on that bumper in order to lean against the fence.

How did you derive at such a conclusion. Someone sitting or leaning on the hood of the car could have placed one or both of their muddy shoes on the bumper of the car. There is no photographic evidence or witness statements saying that they saw anyone standing on the bumper of the car. If you do know something that I do not, then by all means share it with the forum. I look forward to what you have to share.

In other words, anyone contending that this cramped & very confined mini space overthrows & refutes Holland's claim that the parking lot was jammed solid with cars will soon become the "Butt" of his own joke.

I believe that the DCA film does show cars throughout the RR yard and one could refer to them as a "sea of cars', but it is still just a figure of speech. The photos and films taken of the RR yard would be the best and most precise evidence IMO.

Here your counter makes a mockery of your supposition. No, Sam did not say that the cars were butted up against the fence. However, what he does say certainly gives the very strong impression that the cars were in fact butted up against the fence. What you have failed to consider (deliberately?) is the obvious & clear implication of Holland's account of the circumstances of his movement through the parking lot. Holland was in a hurry to reach the sniper's spot.

Holland gives a strong impression? Holland also said Connally was driven down into the floor of the limo, but that too was a figure of speech because that is the way Holland talked. As far as his being in a hurry - the photographic record does not support this any more than Holland saying it took him two minutes to get into the RR yard. Two minutes to get into the RR yard might be shagging ass if you were a snail, but hardly a hurry to a thin human being who seemed to have two good legs.

I rather suspect that Bill is always having a secret snigger with himself about others being trolls, as Bill knows that he, himself, is the real closet xxxxx. That's obvious from his ludicrous carping at others who do not share his pet ideas & from his generally snide tone which sparks conlict among members.

If I am trolling - I do it with illustrations and actual assassination photographs and clips to support my position. I am finding it difficult to see what you are offering in the way of factual evidence to support your responses. Instead you get off topic rather than to address the points being made. Now getting back to the topic of the thread .......... Having seen Duncan's drawing and the points I made about perspective and how that applies to Hudson, do you have anything to say considering you were earlier praising Duncan's claim when the thread started?

Edited June 19, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Shanet Clark]

ZAP 413

[Miles Scull]

I have survived two separate bouts with cancer and have survived a severe car accident that left me with some disability.

The real Bill Miller

A ridiculous attempt to curry favor from a gullible membership, al la the WC, and par for the course for a closet xxxxx!

I call you a xxxx. Now, let's see the verified, authenticated medical reports.

If you do not produce the same, then all of the moderators will ask why. They will want to censure me. But they cannot do so without proof.

The net, the dragnet, is closing in on a stupid xxxxx.

The case is now before the Public & the membership.

We shall see.

[Bill Miller]

I have survived two separate bouts with cancer and have survived a severe car accident that left me with some disability.

The real Bill Miller

A ridiculous attempt to curry favor from a gullible membership, al la the WC, and par for the course for a closet xxxxx!

I call you a xxxx. Now, let's see the verified, authenticated medical reports.

If you do not produce the same, then all of the moderators will ask why. They will want to censure me. But they cannot do so without proof.

The net, the dragnet, is closing in on a stupid xxxxx.

The case is now before the Public & the membership.

We shall see.

Mr. Scull,

I cannot believe you said this.

The Forum Rules do not allow for anyone to be called a xxxx. You are warned to stop this immediately.

Kathy Beckett

iiv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Kathy,

I told you this guy is nothing more than a forum xxxxx. He has had the chance several times now to address the Duncan photo illustration after I pointed out the sizing problem and yet he now trails off about wanting to see my medical records. Most researchers who know me also know all about my past illness. I have been in remission for 14 years now, thus there is no special preferences due to me. If he wants to know more about my past battles with cancer ... he can get the records from the Peoria, Illinois Court House for an injury resulting from the chemotherapy resulted in a litigation. I won that case against Proctor Hospital and all legal books carry a summary of the cases tried in that particular state. All my attending doctors are part of that record. This will mean that he will actually have to spend a dollar to call the court house there and probably a few dollars to get a copy of the case and trolls don't seem to care to do any research of their own.

Now about that sizing problem with Duncan's alleged assassin .... does Scull care to address it or does he have more foolishness to demonstrate for our amusement?

Bill

Edited June 19, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Here are a few more enhancements of Duncan's

Moorman figure. Also a few images of the area

seconds after the assassination.

EBC

Edited June 19, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Bill Miller]

Now about that sizing problem with Duncan's alleged assassin .... does Scull care to address it or does he have more foolishness to demonstrate for our amusement?

Bill

Your faulty analysis can be proven wrong by placing one of the men on the steps next to Zapruder, using YOUR method. Now using your method, one of the two would need to be a fake.

Duncan

Duncan, "perspective" is a rule of physics that artist have to live by - God created the universe - how and why things work like they do should be taken up with him. And just so you know .... From where Moorman was standing, the men on the steps were closer to her camera than what Zapruder and Sitzman were as they stood on a pedestal atop of the knoll. If you thought the steps were further from her camera than the pedestal was, then you are mistaken.

Compare the size of the people near the Moorman location to the size of the hand of the man holding the rifle looking back the other way. (see example)

This same rule applies to your alleged claim. Your alleged shooter is even further from Moorman's location than what the Hat Man was in the demo recreation photo above. Do you even have any idea as to how many 'fence slats' it would take to equal the width of the alleged shooting cops head if you were correct ... I was under the impression that because your responses have slowed down considerably that possibly you had finally seen what I have been trying to tell you all along.

Note how alike motorcycles get smaller the further away from Moorman's camera they are. See how William Newman seen across the street in Moorman's photo is larger than the men on the steps ... just as the men on the steps are larger than the people on the pedestal. It's all in the rule of 'perspective' as to how the ratio of similar sized objects will become smaller to the eye the further away they are.

Bill

Edited June 19, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I have survived two separate bouts with cancer and have survived a severe car accident that left me with some disability.

The real Bill Miller

A ridiculous attempt to curry favor from a gullible membership, al la the WC, and par for the course for a closet xxxxx!

I call you a xxxx. Now, let's see the verified, authenticated medical reports.

If you do not produce the same, then all of the moderators will ask why. They will want to censure me. But they cannot do so without proof.

The net, the dragnet, is closing in on a stupid xxxxx.

The case is now before the Public & the membership.

We shall see.

Mr. Scull,

I cannot believe you said this.

The Forum Rules do not allow for anyone to be called a xxxx. You are warned to stop this immediately.

Kathy Beckett

iiv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Kathy,

I told you this guy is nothing more than a forum xxxxx. He has had the chance several times now to address the Duncan photo illustration after I pointed out the sizing problem and yet he now trails off about wanting to see my medical records. Most researchers who know me also know all about my past illness. I have been in remission for 14 years now, thus there is no special preferences due to me. If he wants to know more about my past battles with cancer ... he can get the records from the Peoria, Illinois Court House for an injury resulting from the chemotherapy resulted in a litigation. I won that case against Proctor Hospital and all legal books carry a summary of the cases tried in that particular state. All my attending doctors are part of that record. This will mean that he will actually have to spend a dollar to call the court house there and probably a few dollars to get a copy of the case and trolls don't seem to care to do any research of their own.

Now about that sizing problem with Duncan's alleged assassin .... does Scull care to address it or does he have more foolishness to demonstrate for our amusement?

Bill

iiv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members.

I told you this guy is nothing more than a forum xxxxx. - Miller

Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers.

You seem to like to argue about things that you really have no knowledge of - Miller

Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned.

If people like Scull, if that is who he really is, would spend a fraction of the time he waste trolling the forum and would actually read all the evidence before posting, then perhaps one could at least take him seriously rather than just some kook looking for attention. - Miller

At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not.

Miller has NO biography.

The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

How about the word "xxxxx?''

Again, Miller studiously & tellingly avoids responding to the obvious refutation of his position. Forget me. It's easy for a master xxxxx like Miller to impugn my arguments or analyzes contra Ed Hoffman. All Miller needs to do is to simply deny the clear facts by asserting that I (or anyone else) do not know or understand the facts. Thus, Miller escapes the need to present reasoned proofs. Miller's saw is always the same: "I know & you do not. End of discussion." If Miller is shown to have no logical basis for supporting Ed Hoffman his knee jerk response is simply: "I know & you don't. Plus you must be a xxxxx." Miller repeats & repeats this absurd slogan ad nausea. Apparently Miller assumes that thusly he survives as a self respecting & qualified researcher.

OK. However, Miller is studiously silent on a perfect point which exposes the fallacy of his position, weak as it is on face value.

Forget me, but note that a major researcher also has abandoned Ed Hoffman as not credible. Who? Why, Gary Mack... Now, I suppose Miller will refute Gary by claiming that he does not know the facts & that he is, like me, a xxxxx.

Thus, Miller's ridiculous ad hominem attacks & silly ego blustering are seen in a bright light. Keep this in mind when next you scan a Miller post.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Duncan, "perspective" is a rule of physics that artist have to live by

Well, that's simply not true, haven't you seen the works of Picasso etc?

- God created the universe - how and why things work like they do should be taken up with him.

God didn't create the Universe, that's one of the biggest, and probably the word's first ever conspiracy and brainwashing programmes ever invented. Of course I can't prove he doesn't exist just as much as you can prove he does exist, so we'll drop that particular subject here I think

Now your trolling like Scull did by trying to avoid the point being made. Regardless of who or what created the universe - it all functions on a set of principles that we must live by.

And just so you know .... From where Moorman was standing, the men on the steps were closer to her camera than what Zapruder and Sitzman were as they stood on a pedestal atop of the knoll. If you thought the steps were further from her camera than the pedestal was, then you are mistaken.

Yes I know that..You miss the point..The point is you can not crop part of an image, paste it to another location, and say " Hey, look....they are the same size." Gimme a break

You must be joking at this point. A photo, as with an artist drawing, is a 2D image. It is the rule of depth/perspective within the image that we are forced to live by. This is all stuff that a beginner in art class is taught and even if you have not ever drawn a picture or had an art class, you surely have the ability to understand the rule of "perpsective" and how and why it must be followed.

I might also add that if one is going to attempt to try and understand the photographical record in the JFK assassination at all - they should at least understand such simple basic rules like 'perspective' so to be able to test their own observations. At this point I should not have to be pointing out things we should have been taught in elementary school.

[Bill Miller]

At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not.

It should also be up to the reader to know the facts before blowing off their big mouth as you did about the cancer I had mentioned. After all, you wanted to know about the real Bill Miller and the phone books are full of them, so what better way to weed out the right one by offering an armchair researcher these extra details - RIGHT? If you did nothing else, you showed this forum that you are not capable of deciding anything by way of reasonable careful thought because your mouth is always moving faster than your brain.

By the way, you are posting about Hoffman in the wrong thread. However, is there anything about the Duncan shooter that you'd like to discuss, just let me know. Any thoughts about the points pertaining to the size problem that has been raised? Anything you'd like to add about "perspective" and how it works?

Bill

Edited June 19, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Now your trolling like Scull did by trying to avoid the point being made. Regardless of who or what created the universe - it all functions on a set of principles that we must live by

I don't xxxxx Bill..I defend points I truly believe just like you do. The universe in my opinion does not function on a set of principles that we must live by..That's your opinion, and one obviously bourne by brainwashing at an early age, no offence intended. The knowledge of Physical principles are ever changing for reasons which we don't understand until someone discovers the principles behind the reasoning and applies them to the modern world. I believe the "functions" as you call them are random, chance, choose whatever words you like, but that's my belief.

And just so you know .... From where Moorman was standing, the men on the steps were closer to her camera than what Zapruder and Sitzman were as they stood on a pedestal atop of the knoll. If you thought the steps were further from her camera than the pedestal was, then you are mistaken.

Once again you miss the point despite me repeatedly telling you that you can not take a portion of an image, paste it to another area, and declare it to be the same size as an object in another area. Where's your logic in this?

Both points you mentioned in your response revolve around a science that you refuse to recognize. Personally, I believe that you do understand 'perspective' and that you understood the simple fence illustration I created to show how things in an image must work off of a "vanishing point". After all, you surely were not serious when you mentioned Picasso's paintings. Even if you didn't understand the matter of perspective - the picture showing the shooters hand being about the size of the people seen at a distance is pretty obvious and telling in itself. It is the same rule that makes the hand appear to be near the size of the people across the street that applies to your flawed conclusion that a floating torso is shooting at the President. It was because the head of the figure you outlined is nearly the same size as peoples heads, if not the same size or larger, is why I mentioned 'perspective' in the first place. One must be careful pretending not to understand the basics so to try and preserve a flawed position for it could lead to not having any credibility in any future discussions of the same.

In the above example for instance - If you were to tell me that the #2 line was an accurate scaling of the #1 line, then I would have to point out that the rule of 'perspective' does not agree with you. The greater distance the fence and the trees are from the camera, then the smaller their ratio to one another becomes. A simple test to show what is wrong with the image would be to crop the one black line and place it next to the other. One should find a dramatic difference in their sizes just as the hand of the shooter looked nearly as big as the people across the street. If the two lines are still the same size or vary slightly in their ratio when the distance to each is greater, then something is terribly worng and that is why I haved pointed out what I believe to be an obvious error in your idea that there is a shooter seen at the location you believe this individual to be.

Bill

Edited June 19, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

One must be careful pretending not to understand the basics so to try and preserve a flawed position for it could lead to not having any credibility in any future discussions of the same.

Bill

Let's cut to the chase here, and bury the artistic diagrammatical representations which have no bearing on the issue of the size of the shooter. Answer the question which you have been avoiding throughout this discussion. I'll phrase it in a different way in order that you can easily reply with a yes or a no.

Are you saying that you can crop a human figure from within the Moorman photograph, place it beside any other human figure in the same photograph, and by comparing both figures at the new location of the crop, that this represents an accurate size comparison?

This is exactly what you are doing by taking the shooter crop down to the Holland location.

Yes or No?

Duncan

The answer is "YES" in the case where someone like yourself has picked a spot that is so much further away from the camera that the outline you have given for this subject is as big as the peoples heads who are only half the distance from the camera. I do not know how to make it any simpler than what I have done so far.

Had your alleged outline of the floating cops head been 15 to 20 % the size of Hudson's head, then you would still be in the ball game, but it isn't. For your alleged cop head to be viewed as real, then one needs to consider the greater distance it is from the camera and then apply the same increased ratio of perspective change to its size to see how it would compare to someone like Hudson if they were standing next to each other. I am telling you what any knowledgeable person who understands perspective would say and that is if your alleged cop head is roughly the same size as a persons head who is half the distance to the camera, then it is too big to be real for the reasons I have previously stated.

Maybe instead of debating me - go to a local school and take that image to an art teacher with the text I have given you and see if what I have said isn't so. It would be no different than someone showing me one of the faces on a distant Mt. Rushmore and saying that because it is about the same size as someone's face in front of the camera in the foreground, then the face could be considered real. You have failed to take into consideration the increased distance from the camera in your dealing with Moorman's photo.

If you back to the example in post #97, you could crop the distant black line and move it up to the closer black line to see they are the exact same size. What is wrong with that is that in real life they are supposed to be the same size, so when one is seen much further down the fence line it should be much smaller ... not seen as the same size as the closer one. If this one simple premise ever gets through to you, then everything else I have said will fall into place.

Bill

Edited June 19, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Herb White]

One must be careful pretending not to understand the basics so to try and preserve a flawed position for it could lead to not having any credibility in any future discussions of the same.

Bill

Let's cut to the chase here, and bury the artistic diagrammatical representations which have no bearing on the issue of the size of the shooter. Answer the question which you have been avoiding throughout this discussion. I'll phrase it in a different way in order that you can easily reply with a yes or a no.

Are you saying that you can crop a human figure from within the Moorman photograph, place it beside any other human figure in the same photograph, and by comparing both figures at the new location of the crop, that this represents an accurate size comparison?

This is exactly what you are doing by taking the shooter crop down to the Holland location.

Yes or No?

Duncan

The answer is "YES" in the case where someone like yourself has picked a spot that is so much further away from the camera that the outline you have given for this subject is as big as the peoples heads who are only half the distance from the camera. I do not know how to make it any simpler than what I have done so far.

Had your alleged outline of the floating cops head been 15 to 20 % the size of Hudson's head, then you would still be in the ball game, but it isn't. For your alleged cop head to be viewed as real, then one needs to consider the greater distance it is from the camera and then apply the same increased ratio of perspective change to its size to see how it would compare to someone like Hudson if they were standing next to each other. I am telling you what any knowledgeable person who understands perspective would say and that is if your alleged cop head is roughly the same size as a persons head who is half the distance to the camera, then it is too big to be real for the reasons I have previously stated.

Maybe instead of debating me - go to a local school and take that image to an art teacher with the text I have given you and see if what I have said isn't so. It would be no different than someone showing me one of the faces on a distant Mt. Rushmore and saying that because it is about the same size as someone's face in front of the camera in the foreground, then the face could be considered real. You have failed to take into consideration the increased distance from the camera in your dealing with Moorman's photo.

If you back to the example in post #97, you could crop the distant black line and move it up to the closer black line to see they are the exact same size. What is wrong with that is that in real life they are supposed to be the same size, so when one is seen much further down the fence line it should be much smaller ... not seen as the same size as the closer one. If this one simple premise ever gets through to you, then everything else I have said will fall into place.

Bill

Bill,

I had emailed you a while back in regards to a question on the Moorman photo and we never communicated, so I thought I'd ask it while you werte available online. Do you have a copy of the colorized Moorman used in the MWKK available to post? If so, I would appreciate you posting it.

I appreciate your efforts on the photographic aspects of the assassination. I believe they alone have proven conspiracy beyond a doubt. As a serious student of the assassination for thirty years I am grateful to you for clarifying various points in the photo evidence, especially the blackdog man/Gordon Arnold issue. Your conclusion was the only one that made any sense at all and laid to rest a puzzling part of the events on the knoll.

I also am convinced that Ed Hoffman was truthful and saw exacltly what he said he did that day. He and Gordon Arnold are two of the most credible witnesses and that is why they have been attacked so relentlessly over the years. Their accounts are both simple, straightforward and corraborated by others.

Herb

[Bill Miller]

Duncan, it is little wonder that some of you guys, especially you, get so worked up over your observations being called into question because you try so desperately to keep from admitting your error that you only hear what you want despite it not being what was said. Here you have done it once again and have posted a response that has nothing to do with reality. For example: I am highlighting in bold print what you have said and I will follow-up with the same as to what was really said in my post.

What Duncan hears: "Yes is the answer I was expecting. You have been beating about the bush like a headless turkey with selective analysis, eg you stated that Zapruder is at the same distance from the camera as the men on the steps are. That's wrong for a start. If he was at the same distance, then the Zapruder frames would have captured a sideview of the man on the steps head. We see a view from behind which proves my point."

Now this is what I really said as can be read in response #91, #92, #96, and #97 .... "And just so you know .... From where Moorman was standing, the men on the steps were closer to her camera than what Zapruder and Sitzman were as they stood on a pedestal atop of the knoll. If you thought the steps were further from her camera than the pedestal was, then you are mistaken."

So the fact is that you either do not want to (or cannot) follow what is being told to you. Two of those numbered post were yours where you got it right by pasting my exact words in your response. Now you get it totally wrong! Why is that??? Would you now like to retract that nonsense or would you prefer to say that someone must have altered the type in all those responses?

... to everyone except you it seems that the shooter is far smaller than Hudson

Again you misstate the facts. The outline of the head your drew is what I said is roughly the same size as Hudson's head ... not that the outline of the head you drew is the same size as "HUDSON" ... there is a difference and the examples of my placing the two heads together should have told you exactly what I was implying. As far as everyone believing that the shooter is far smaller than Hudson goes - you have been the only person still saying it.

To show the futility of your analysis, try doing the same analysis on Hatman. You can't have your cake and it eat.

Duncan

If it is your contention that the hat worn by Hat Man is as big as Hudson's head or any of the men next to him, then I have to assume that you didn't even bother to examine it before making the inference.

The image speaks for itself and is exactly what I would expect given the increased distance to the Hat Man's location from where Moorman took her photograph from.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

To show the futility of your analysis, try doing the same analysis on Hatman. You can't have your cake and it eat.

Duncan

If it is your contention that the hat worn by Hat Man is as big as Hudson's head or any of the men next to him, then I have to assume that you didn't even bother to examine it before making the inference.

Duncan

The study of perspective especially in regard to photographic imaging is by no means as simple & as straight forward as some so called experts would have you believe, - to suit their preconceived notions.

Take for example this schematic:

Would you believe that the black rectangle (midget man) in the foreground is actually smaller or more midget-like than the rectangle at the back?

Things are not so simple.

And consider the action of the brain here:

Square A (midget man) is actually the same shade of gray as square B (ghost sniper).

Needless to say these factors apply to Moorman just as they do to Ed's 267 yard line of sight. Phantoms suddenly spring up where you might least expect them & then a sea change in one's belief system is near at hand.