Jump to content
The Education Forum

Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter


Guest Eugene B. Connolly
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 364
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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:

Illusion.jpg

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:

illusion2.jpg

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. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what i've been trying to get through to Bill Miles, but some people unfortunately think they know it all, and are not willing to learn.

Now... Bill posted a stupid crop of hatman's hat down to the men on the steps to show the hat as being smaller than a face. huh? I asked him to post hatman because I knew he would do this without a face beneath the hat to justify his point, to try to convince everyone, hoping they would be stupid enough to not realise that if a face was added beneath the hat, it would be almost the same size. I've moved the man back up to the fence beneath the Hoss hat. I'd say the hat fits the face....as the old saying goes

Duncan B)

Nice job. Obvious... Yeah, Ol Bill got shocked when he realized that just as Sam Holland couldn't run up a pathway by the picket fence just so Ed's sniper couldn't run/walk down the same because it was blocked. I think Bill will come around eventually as soon perhaps as he realizes , for example, that the trajectories & ballistics are wrong for midget man.

I think you were asking for a distance measurement to a knoll tree awhile back. Which tree? The Hudson tree?

M

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Illusion.jpg

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:

illusion2.jpg

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. B)

Miles, please explain in more detail if you can. If the lanes all run to a vanishing point, then the distant object takes up no less than 5 to 6 lanes in width, thus it is not the same size as the closer objec which fits into one lane. If the pegs are all the same height, then the distant object is also taller than the closer object. Illusions can be created by leaving out certain data. However, the photo of the knoll is real and the laws of perspective are in play regardless of how you wish they were not. I also invite you to discuss these illustrations, along with the text, with someone experienced in 'perspective' such as an art instructor. You can probably accomplish this by not even having to leave your chair by emailing it to them.

As far as what Ed could and couldn't see from such a distance - I have been there and seen it for myself. What Ed described could have been seen and those who have also been there know this. Whether Ed mistook a broom handle for a gun - we can debate that, but seeing someone with a long object in their hands from that distance is possible for I can do it and I do not have 20/20 vision or the increased senses a person with such a handicap as Ed would have had. as I said before - I could see the passengers of the vehicles traveling along Stemmons Freeway and I could tell if they were a man or a woman and whether they were dark headed or light haired. I find it quite frustrating to have to respond to someone like yourself with actual first hand knowledge of being there, while you have not stated that you also have gone to the scene and verified this matter one way or the other. In some ways you help my position for it shows the lack of effort people like yourself have put into your so-called search for the truth in JFK's assassination.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what i've been trying to get through to Bill Miles, but some people unfortunately think they know it all, and are not willing to learn.

Now... Bill posted a stupid crop of hatman's hat down to the men on the steps to show the hat as being smaller than a face. huh? I asked him to post hatman because I knew he would do this without a face beneath the hat to justify his point, to try to convince everyone, hoping they would be stupid enough to not realise that if a face was added beneath the hat, it would be almost the same size. I've moved the man back up to the fence beneath the Hoss hat. I'd say the hat fits the face....as the old saying goes

Duncan B)

Find just one art instructor, professional photographer, or even a physics instructor who will say that same sized people seen at various distances in a photograph will be seen as the same size when cropped and moved up next to those closer to the camera and we can end all this nonsense - just one!!! As Adlai Ewing Stevenson said to the Russians ... "I am prepared to wait until hell freezes over". Once again I remind you of the image posted of the stand-in shooter and how the further away the people are from the camera - the smaller they become on film. So much so do they get smaller on film that the shooter's hand is as big as the people standing near the Moorman location. Do you care to acknowledge that observation or do you prefer to ignore it some more?

Here is another example - Jackie's head is closer to the camera than JFK's head, thus hers looks larger. JFK's head is closer to the camera, thus his head is bigger than the peoples heads in the background. It's the way things work and there is no amount of pretending to be dumb about it going to change the way things work in the universe.

BTW, the reason Zapruder didn't film the guys on the steps (other than the back of Hudson's head) was because his camera was zoomed past them from an elevated view. Moorman's camera was not.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan MacRae' post='106495' date='Jun 19 2007, 11:16 PM']Find just one art instructor, professional photographer, or even a physics instructor who will say that same sized people seen at various distances in a photograph will be seen as the same size when cropped and moved up next to those closer to the camera and we can end all this nonsense - just one!!!

I can't, this is the whole point i've been agonisingly trying to get across to you with no success, until now. Thanks for conceding this point and agreeing with what i have been saying in previous post's and which you obviously misread B)

Thanks for pointing out my error. I was multitasking here and butchered that name all to pieces. It should have read (Adlai Stevenson).

Also, about the 267 yards to the Hoffman location that Miles keeps harping about. I am reminded that this distance is a par 4 on a golf course and the flag and pole can be seen when teeing off.

Once again I remind you of the image posted of the stand-in shooter and how the further away the people are from the camera - the smaller they become on film. So much so do they get smaller on film that the shooter's hand is as big as the people standing near the Moorman location. Do you care to acknowledge that observation or do you prefer to ignore it some more?

I don't acknowledge it, because as good as my observations are, I can't make out a hand. Care to point out the hand ?

Do you care to acknowledge the hand now and feel free to explain why is looks so large compared to the people standing near the Moorman location.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Illusion.jpg

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:

illusion2.jpg

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. :D

Miles, please explain in more detail if you can. If the lanes all run to a vanishing point, then the distant object takes up no less than 5 to 6 lanes in width, thus it is not the same size as the closer objec which fits into one lane. If the pegs are all the same height, then the distant object is also taller than the closer object. Illusions can be created by leaving out certain data. However, the photo of the knoll is real and the laws of perspective are in play regardless of how you wish they were not. I also invite you to discuss these illustrations, along with the text, with someone experienced in 'perspective' such as an art instructor. You can probably accomplish this by not even having to leave your chair by emailing it to them.

As far as what Ed could and couldn't see from such a distance - I have been there and seen it for myself. What Ed described could have been seen and those who have also been there know this. Whether Ed mistook a broom handle for a gun - we can debate that, but seeing someone with a long object in their hands from that distance is possible for I can do it and I do not have 20/20 vision or the increased senses a person with such a handicap as Ed would have had. as I said before - I could see the passengers of the vehicles traveling along Stemmons Freeway and I could tell if they were a man or a woman and whether they were dark headed or light haired. I find it quite frustrating to have to respond to someone like yourself with actual first hand knowledge of being there, while you have not stated that you also have gone to the scene and verified this matter one way or the other. In some ways you help my position for it shows the lack of effort people like yourself have put into your so-called search for the truth in JFK's assassination.

Bill

Hey Bill, your back in town! Thought we lost you there for awhile. Good to see you again.

Now to the matter.

Miles, please explain in more detail if you can.

No prob, Ol fella.

If the lanes all run to a vanishing point, then the distant object takes up no less than 5 to 6 lanes in width, thus it is not the same size as the closer objec which fits into one lane. If the pegs are all the same height, then the distant object is also taller than the closer object.

Good, tight reasoning here, Bill. You've made a bullseye. Right away you have seized the data shown & you have focused on the lines of perspective. You have worked out that in a three dimensional Newtonian space the black rectangle in the distance must be colossal (my word) compared to the little midget (my word) rectangle up front. Now, here comes the inevitable banana peel. B) What if the picture is only two dimensional? Now, the art teacher is going to teach you a very simple lesson. Get your gum eraser out and erase everything from the surface except the two rectangles; then measure the height & width of the rectangles. Presto Changeo!! Yep, you guessed it, the are they same size. Now, take out your no. 4 graphite & draw the perspective lines back in. A+ for Bill!

Illusions can be created by leaving out certain data.

There you go. There whole scene can be radically altered.

However, the photo of the knoll is real and the laws of perspective are in play regardless of how you wish they were not.

Uup, upup, not quite so fast. Always remember: appearances CAN be deceiving. Class dismissed.

As far as what Ed could and couldn't see from such a distance - I have been there and seen it for myself. What Ed described could have been seen and those who have also been there know this. Whether Ed mistook a broom handle for a gun - we can debate that, but seeing someone with a long object in their hands from that distance is possible for I can do it and I do not have 20/20 vision or the increased senses a person with such a handicap as Ed would have had. as I said before - I could see the passengers of the vehicles traveling along Stemmons Freeway and I could tell if they were a man or a woman and whether they were dark headed or light haired. I find it quite frustrating to have to respond to someone like yourself with actual first hand knowledge of being there, while you have not stated that you also have gone to the scene and verified this matter one way or the other.

Well, well, Billo (you don't mind the term of endearment I trust?), you are very gracious to pause to consider the astonishing possibility that I too may abide with the blessed few, those who have trod the sacred ground, the hallowed earth of Dealey. Thank you. Yes, I confess, I'm a jolly knoller, as we like to call ourselves down the club. You know the secret handshake? ;)

In some ways you help my position for it shows the lack of effort people like yourself have put into your so-called search for the truth in JFK's assassination.

Billo, aside from Duncan & Gary Mack & Gaeton Fonzi you are the goods when it comes to el researcho. Me? I'm just here to make you shine! You know, just see my poor ineptitute hiding in your great shadow. :lol:

Now as for poor Ed (I've always liked him as a person), Im afraid it's a no go, unfortunately. I know you're his buddy, so I won't offend you with all the details. But I dare say even you were taken aback to realize that just as Sam Holland couldn't run up a pathway by the picket fence just so Ed's sniper couldn't run/walk down the same because it was blocked. The proof of its blockage is that Sam was forced to take the course of least resistance & of course that was not along by the fence.. I have a vision of Sam climbing over cars along the fence's edge. :lol: Another image I have is Ed's phantom sniper casually strolling along, zigzaging along through the tangle of cars & trucks, trying his best to look innocent as the madding throng pores into the parking lot. Maybe he was looking up into the sky to spot passing birds & whistling the seven midgets' song from Snow White. :up

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good, tight reasoning here, Bill. You've made a bullseye. Right away you have seized the data shown & you have focused on the lines of perspective. You have worked out that in a three dimensional Newtonian space the black rectangle in the distance must be colossal (my word) compared to the little midget (my word) rectangle up front. Now, here comes the inevitable banana peel. B) What if the picture is only two dimensional? Now, the art teacher is going to teach you a very simple lesson. Get your gum eraser out and erase everything from the surface except the two rectangles; then measure the height & width of the rectangles. Presto Changeo!! Yep, you guessed it, the are they same size. Now, take out your no. 4 graphite & draw the perspective lines back in. A+ for Bill!
I specifically said that if that the lines were all going to a vanishing point, then the further object is much larger. ("If the lanes all run to a vanishing point, then the distant object takes up no less than 5 to 6 lanes in width, thus it is not the same size as the closer object which fits into one lane.") Also, all photos are 2D.
There you go. There whole scene can be radically altered.

Is it your position that Moorman's photo is altered?

However, the photo of the knoll is real and the laws of perspective are in play regardless of how you wish they were not.

Uup, upup, not quite so fast. Always remember: appearances CAN be deceiving. Class dismissed.

Class dismissed? You didn't say anything. Moorman's photo is a 2D image that is of the real world. An artist recreating that image must work off a vanishing point so to keep the image in scale. Let me know when class resumes so you can address the rest of this.

Well, well, Billo (you don't mind the term of endearment I trust?), you are very gracious to pause to consider the astonishing possibility that I too may abide with the blessed few, those who have trod the sacred ground, the hallowed earth of Dealey. Thank you. Yes, I confess, I'm a jolly knoller, as we like to call ourselves down the club. You know the secret handshake?
If you were a knoller', then you would appear to know more than you have presented to this forum. When you were on the knoll - did you visit the RR yard and look out towards Stemmons Freeway because if you have, then you have failed to mention it. Did you shoot any recreation photos? Did you take any measurements of the area? Did you go in and ask to see the collection of post assassination films and photos of the RR yard? It appears from your responses that you didn't bother going out onto the underpass to see how one could not see down to the end of the fence because of the way the high columns are lined up. Did you even bother to check if you could see the area where the steam pipe was located so to know if it was possible for the witness Seymour Weitzman spoke with could have actually noticed something being tossed there as he looked through the trees? Please answer these questions when class takes up again.
I'm just here to make you shine! You know, just see my poor ineptitute hiding in your great shadow.

Thanks, you have done a good job at doing that much.

Now as for poor Ed (I've always liked him as a person), Im afraid it's a no go, unfortunately. I know you're his buddy, so I won't offend you with all the details.
I have my doubts about you being able to offer any details of anything pertaining to the matter we have been going back and forth on. I did not know Ed as a "buddy", but rather as a researcher who went to him and requested information from him, I interviewed him, I spoke at length with him by way of his daughter, and I had Tony Cummings film the entire event. A few times since that day I have met Ed for a moment and said hello in passing. What I have reported has been from my own investigation and not from any "buddy" relationship that you think I may have had with him.
But I dare say even you were taken aback to realize that just as Sam Holland couldn't run up a pathway by the picket fence just so Ed's sniper couldn't run/walk down the same because it was blocked. The proof of its blockage is that Sam was forced to take the course of least resistance & of course that was not along by the fence.. I have a vision of Sam climbing over cars along the fence's edge. Another image I have is Ed's phantom sniper casually strolling along, zigzaging along through the tangle of cars & trucks, trying his best to look innocent as the madding throng pores into the parking lot. Maybe he was looking up into the sky to spot passing birds & whistling the seven midgets' song from Snow White.

Could you please cite where Holland said that he could not get down the fence line and was forced to take the path of least resistance?

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't believe the figure is real, tell me how you can justify using your imaginary hand, to justify your point?

Duncan

Imaginary hand???

How can someone claim they see a shooter in a fuzzy B&W photo, but cannot see the man's hand who is holding the rifle? Are you sure you want to try and keep dancing here because you are not helping convince anyone that your interpretation skills are any good if you cannot see the man's hand. (see below)

And while you are here, do you care to explain why the people's heads on the knoll are so small just from the Hat Man's location looking back the other way and yet your alleged shooter's head is roughly as big as Hudson's head. I would appreciate you just addressing that much. Thanks!

Bill

post-1084-1182297968_thumb.jpg

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I dare say even you were taken aback to realize that just as Sam Holland couldn't run up a pathway by the picket fence just so Ed's sniper couldn't run/walk down the same because it was blocked. The proof of its blockage is that Sam was forced to take the course of least resistance & of course that was not along by the fence.. I have a vision of Sam climbing over cars along the fence's edge.

Please show me below where Holland said what you just attributed to him? In fact, in the last set of questions and answers below ... Holland seemed to have misspoken when he said, "I was in front of the cars, then I went in front of the cars." he goes on to say that after he got up to the fence - that he was able to walk back down looking around. Nothing is crystal clear, so tell me what Holland meant when he said he 'walked back down looking around'? Does that statement imply that one could walk down the fence line?

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 and I couldn't see up in that corner. I ran on up to the corner of this fence behind the building. By the time I got there there were 12 or 15 policemen and plainclothesmen, and we looked for empty shells around there for quite a while, and I left because I had to get back to the office. I didn't give anyone my name. No one--didn't anyone ask for it, and it wasn't but an hour or so until the deputy sheriff came down to the office and took me back up to the courthouse.

Mr. MORRISON - That is Elm Street. It would be behind the fence, wouldn't it?

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, I have got the fence running up here, and this car would be back in there [indicating]. This is the trees out here, which would--and that is approximately the same location as---the car and the trees that I saw the smoke would probably be the same location.

Mr. STERN - All right. And this was a station wagon?

Mr. HOLLAND - Now, the reason I didn't think so much about that at the time, was because there was so many people out there, and there was law enforcement officers and I thought, well, if there is anything to that they would pick that up, or notice it, but it looks like someone had been standing there for a long time, because it was muddy.

Mr. STERN - Tracks you saw in the mud?

Mr. HOLLAND - It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just----

Mr. STERN - And then you saw some mud on the bumper?

Mr. HOLLAND - Mud on the bumper in two spots.

Mr. STERN - As if someone had cleaned his foot, or---

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, as if someone had cleaned their foot, or stood up on the bumper to see over the fence.

Mr. STERN - I see.

Mr. HOLLAND - Because, you couldn't very well see over it standing down in the mud, or standing on the ground, and to get a better view you could----

Mr. STERN - Was there anything else you noticed about this station wagon?

Mr. HOLLAND - No.

Mr. STERN - When you first came around, that was quite soon after the 'shots were fired?

Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.

Mr. STERN - And did you notice anything about this station wagon?

Mr. HOLLAND - I was in front of the cars, then I went in front of the cars.

Mr. STERN - In front of the cars---

Mr. HOLLAND - The cars they were parked pretty close to the fence, and I came up in front of the cars and got over to the fence and then walked back down looking around, just like the rest of them.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eugene B. Connolly

Duncan,

Here are a few images.

I am not sure if the position of your figure

is accurate in the animation.

Perhaps you could check to see if it

is correct. The scale may be off.

EBC

Edited by Eugene B. Connolly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan,

Here are a few images.

I am not sure if the position of your figure

is accurate in the animation.

Perhaps you could check to see if it

is correct. The scale may be off.

EBC

To find the location along the fence that Duncan is talking about in other assassination images is quite simple. This feat can be accomplished by simply matching up the sunspots on the fence with any assassination film or photo taken of the stockade fence. Hat Man stood just west of the first large sunspot starting from the eastmost corner of the fence. That sunspot is quite noticeable in Moorman's photograph, as well as in all the images of the fence on 11/22/63.

Bill

HM - Hat Man and DM - Duncan are inserted on the image below by using the sunspots on the fence for reference points.

post-1084-1182348497_thumb.jpg

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I dare say even you were taken aback to realize that just as Sam Holland couldn't run up a pathway by the picket fence just so Ed's sniper couldn't run/walk down the same because it was blocked. The proof of its blockage is that Sam was forced to take the course of least resistance & of course that was not along by the fence.. I have a vision of Sam climbing over cars along the fence's edge.

Please show me below where Holland said what you just attributed to him? In fact, in the last set of questions and answers below ... Holland seemed to have misspoken when he said, "I was in front of the cars, then I went in front of the cars." he goes on to say that after he got up to the fence - that he was able to walk back down looking around. Nothing is crystal clear, so tell me what Holland meant when he said he 'walked back down looking around'? Does that statement imply that one could walk down the fence line?

The short answer is: NO, but it's a nice fudge! :lol:

Bilbo, I'll try to point out a few things in limited time. But this issue is getting a little moribund. I realize that after years of thinking one way it is very difficult to turn around & see things in a different way. It's human nature or rather hobbit nature to be very angry when one must realize that years of research have to be chucked out the window. Very aggravating & the tendency is to desperately try to find a fudge that will save the day. But, if you are afraid that if Ed's story is proved to be not credible, that then the theory of the picket fence shooter is undermined, well, I should say don't worry. There's plenty of other corroborating evidence.

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

A big labyrinth of massed cars & trucks.

and I couldn't see up in that corner.

Telling. If Sam couldn't see into that corner, from 40 yards, then how could Ed (even with Superman Xray vision ;)) see in that corner from 267 yards?

I ran on up to the corner of this fence behind the building. By the time I got there there were 12 or 15 policemen and plainclothesmen, and we looked for empty shells around there for quite a while, and I left because I had to get back to the office. I didn't give anyone my name. No one--didn't anyone ask for it, and it wasn't but an hour or so until the deputy sheriff came down to the office and took me back up to the courthouse.

Mr. MORRISON - That is Elm Street. It would be behind the fence, wouldn't it?

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, I have got the fence running up here, and this car would be back in there [indicating]. This is the trees out here, which would--and that is approximately the same location as---the car and the trees that I saw the smoke would probably be the same location.

Mr. STERN - All right. And this was a station wagon?

Mr. HOLLAND - Now, the reason I didn't think so much about that at the time, was because there was so many people out there, and there was law enforcement officers and I thought, well, if there is anything to that they would pick that up, or notice it, but it looks like someone had been standing there for a long time, because it was muddy.

Mr. STERN - Tracks you saw in the mud?

Mr. HOLLAND - It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just----

Mr. STERN - And then you saw some mud on the bumper?

Mr. HOLLAND - Mud on the bumper in two spots.

Mr. STERN - As if someone had cleaned his foot, or---

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, as if someone had cleaned their foot, or stood up on the bumper to see over the fence.

Mr. STERN - I see.

Mr. HOLLAND - Because, you couldn't very well see over it standing down in the mud, or standing on the ground, and to get a better view you could----

Mr. STERN - Was there anything else you noticed about this station wagon?

Mr. HOLLAND - No.

It's useful to realize that all the reports were of a stretch of trammeled mud up against the fence of about 10 ft. in length at the Holland shooter spot. (See Roberdeau map) Now, as Sam says, when he got to the area in 2 min. he found that "...there were 12 or 15 policemen and plainclothesmen, and we looked for empty shells around there for quite a while,..." It is reasonable to assume that if there was mud in the trammeled area, then there would have been mud in the untrammeled areas along & by the fence as well, i.e., in fact all along the the length of the fence, right down to the steam pipe. Well, if someone had walked down along the fence to the steam pipe, then he must have left a trail of footprints! :eek One of the "12 or 15 policemen and plainclothesmen" would have found this trail of foot prints. (Hey, Jim, look here, somebody went this way. :up I'm going to look for some casings down this way.) The fact that no telltale trail was observed & noted would indicate that there was no such trail to be seen & noted. The logical explanation for the absence of such a trail is that no one walked down along the fence by the fence because that pathway was in fact blocked by cars parked & standing up close to the fence as would be expected given Sam's description of the lot.

Mr. STERN - When you first came around, that was quite soon after the 'shots were fired?

Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.

Mr. STERN - And did you notice anything about this station wagon?

Mr. HOLLAND - I was in front of the cars, then I went in front of the cars.

Sam means that he had made his way down to the shooter's spot by navigating a passage away from the fence by about a cars length distance from the fence. Thus, when Sam arrived at the spot he was a cars length away from the fence. So, to move to the spot at the fence Sam walks between parallel parked cars there to find the muddy area that was trammeled.

Mr. STERN - In front of the cars---

Mr. HOLLAND - The cars they were parked pretty close to the fence

Note here that Sam considers it important, in order to make clear what means, that he emphasize the fact that the cars were "parked pretty close to the fence." This is Sam's way of indicating that the space between the parked car & the fence was narrow. (Remember that someone had apparently stood on a bumper, leaving mud behind. A narrow space required this action.)

, and I came up in front of the cars and got over to the fence

Sam is saying that he moved from the front or the back of the cars (call it the end of the cars not close to the fence) down along between the parallel parked cars until he reached the fence.

and then walked back down looking around, just like the rest of them.

Then, Sam "walked back down looking around." This could mean that Sam could have walked back down between the the parallel parked cars, the way he had approached the fence, or, alternatively, Sam could be saying that, after running & jumping through the lot, he came initially to the the end of the cars (the station wagon) not close to the fence & then & only then (of course), having got to that point, did he then (and only then) walk back down (to) toward the fence to look around.

just like the rest of them.

And, of course, this is the key. Sam says that he proceeded to the end of the cars not close to the fence AND THERE, AT THAT POINT IN TIME he saw the 12 or 15 policemen and plainclothesmen already at the fence, by the fence, looking around (at the ground) for casings, etc. So, at that point in time, Sam, himself, walked back down T H E R E to look around just like the rest of them (the policemen and plainclothesmen ) were down there looking around. Sam's use of the word "back" could be misleading as it might suggest to someone reading quickly (Bilbo) that Sam had walked back down the picket fence toward the steam pipe. But, of course, that's not Sam's meaning on the final analysis. Sam, after his manner & habit of speaking, is using his phrase "back down" to simply mean a direction vector to an area. "Back down" to over there where they are. I went back down to there. With the cluster of the policemen and plainclothesmen aggregated around the muddy area in front of the station wagon, it is clear that this is the area that Sam took to be his shooter's spot. Sam wanted to investigate this spot. He did so. Sam "(we) looked for empty shells around there for quite a while, and I left because I had to get back to the office." There is no mention, or suggestion, that Sam went on a search for casings in any other area than that area around the station wagon. Sam did not go back along the fence toward the steam pipe. As Sam says, Sam went back to his office (instead) as he was needing to get back there. :up

So, anyway, I dare say even you were taken aback to realize that just as Sam Holland couldn't run up a pathway by the picket fence just so Ed's sniper couldn't run/walk down the same because it was blocked. The proof of its blockage is that Sam was forced to take the course of least resistance & of course that was not along by the fence.. I have a vision of Sam climbing over cars along the fence's edge. Of course, you can say that there was some space between the cars & the fence. But Sam tells that they "were parked pretty close to the fence." Thus, no room for walking passage, or virtually blocked.

This, of course, is just one of many problems with Ed's story. It's the set of them that causes researchers like Gary Mack & others to abandon Ed's story as credible. However, that said, like Duncan says, Ed may have seen "something." Unfortunately, that something cannot be what Ed said it was.

Bilbo, hope this helps. Time constraints prevent more analysis at this point as the topic is fairly exhausted, moribund.

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please show me below where Holland said what you just attributed to him? In fact, in the last set of questions and answers below ... Holland seemed to have misspoken when he said, "I was in front of the cars, then I went in front of the cars." he goes on to say that after he got up to the fence - that he was able to walk back down looking around. Nothing is crystal clear, so tell me what Holland meant when he said he 'walked back down looking around'? Does that statement imply that one could walk down the fence line?

The short answer is: NO, but it's a nice fudge! :lol:

A non-responsive answer.

Bilbo, I'll try to point out a few things in limited time. But this issue is getting a little moribund. I realize that after years of thinking one way it is very difficult to turn around & see things in a different way. It's human nature or rather hobbit nature to be very angry when one must realize that years of research have to be chucked out the window. Very aggravating & the tendency is to desperately try to find a fudge that will save the day. But, if you are afraid that if Ed's story is proved to be not credible, that then the theory of the picket fence shooter is undermined, well, I should say don't worry. There's plenty of other corroborating evidence.

Another non-responsive answer.

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

and I couldn't see up in that corner.

Telling. If Sam couldn't see into that corner, from 40 yards, then how could Ed (even with Superman Xray vision :up) see in that corner from 267 yards?

Holland, according to you, ran out into the RR yard and didn't choose a path next to the fence, thus from his present location at that time - he probably couldn't see up in that corner because of the parked cars - not to mention the overhanging trees as seen in the Moorman photo. Yet in the large Willis photo in Groden's book called "The Killing of a President" ... the Hat Man can be seen over the fence and through the foliage with nothing but a Dallas sky for a backdrop. What this means is that you are inventing a scene that never existed. All I can do is suggest that you follow Holland's statements more closely and consider his field of view from that location.

Below Holland says that from where the footprints were seen that one could not see over the fence (obviously to the street below) without standing on a bumper of a car. The fence is only 5' tall, thus Holland is talking about a location that is not right up against the fence, but rather back from it far enough that one could not see the parade passing below without elevating themselves. Think about this and see if it doesn't make perfect sense for even Holland was able to see over the fence when he and Lane went to that location. This is one of the reasons why I have always believed that only the top of Hat Man's fedora is seen in Moorman's photo and that reason is because he was not right up against the fence when he fired and Moorman's uphill view allowed her camera to only capture the top of the hat as this individual started to move away.

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, as if someone had cleaned their foot, or stood up on the bumper to see over the fence.

Mr. STERN - I see.

Mr. HOLLAND - Because, you couldn't very well see over it standing down in the mud, or standing on the ground, and to get a better view you could----

Mr. STERN - Was there anything else you noticed about this station wagon?

Mr. HOLLAND - No.

It's useful to realize that all the reports were of a stretch of trammeled mud up against the fence of about 10 ft. in length at the Holland shooter spot. (See Roberdeau map) Now, as Sam says, when he got to the area in 2 min. he found that "...there were 12 or 15 policemen and plainclothesmen, and we looked for empty shells around there for quite a while,..." It is reasonable to assume that if there was mud in the trammeled area, then there would have been mud in the untrammeled areas along & by the fence as well, i.e., in fact all along the the length of the fence, right down to the steam pipe. Well, if someone had walked down along the fence to the steam pipe, then he must have left a trail of footprints! :eek One of the "12 or 15 policemen and plainclothesmen" would have found this trail of foot prints. (Hey, Jim, look here, somebody went this way. :up I'm going to look for some casings down this way.) The fact that no telltale trail was observed & noted would indicate that there was no such trail to be seen & noted. The logical explanation for the absence of such a trail is that no one walked down along the fence by the fence because that pathway was in fact blocked by cars parked & standing up close to the fence as would be expected given Sam's description of the lot.

That is an interesting supposition, but one that is lacking in careful thought. We know that the two men Bowers had seen had gone somewhere, so where are their footprints??? You see, you do not have enough information to know why those prints were in one area and possibly not others. Was that one area a low spot that held water so that it was muddy while the rest of the RR yard was not ... we just do not know. But something has to explain why footprints were left behind while no trail leading away could not be followed and this is why your assumption is lacking IMO. These guys certainly were not beamed up by Scotty onboard of the USS Enterprise.

Mr. STERN - When you first came around, that was quite soon after the 'shots were fired?

Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.

Mr. STERN - And did you notice anything about this station wagon?

Mr. HOLLAND - I was in front of the cars, then I went in front of the cars.

Sam means that he had made his way down to the shooter's spot by navigating a passage away from the fence by about a cars length distance from the fence. Thus, when Sam arrived at the spot he was a cars length away from the fence. So, to move to the spot at the fence Sam walks between parallel parked cars there to find the muddy area that was trammeled.

Wow - you got that out of Holland saying, "I was in front of the cars, then I went in front of the cars." Now use that uncanny ability to explain why you believe there were no footprints leading away from that spot. I look forward to hearing your answer.

Mr. STERN - In front of the cars---

Mr. HOLLAND - The cars they were parked pretty close to the fence

Note here that Sam considers it important, in order to make clear what means, that he emphasize the fact that the cars were "parked pretty close to the fence." This is Sam's way of indicating that the space between the parked car & the fence was narrow. (Remember that someone had apparently stood on a bumper, leaving mud behind. A narrow space required this action.)

But the car wasn't close enough to the 5' tall fence for someone to not need to stand on a bumper to see the street below. Does this not register with you?

Then, Sam "walked back down looking around." This could mean that Sam could have walked back down between the the parallel parked cars, the way he had approached the fence, or, alternatively, Sam could be saying that, after running & jumping through the lot, he came initially to the the end of the cars (the station wagon) not close to the fence & then & only then (of course), having got to that point, did he then (and only then) walk back down (to) toward the fence to look around.

Well, there obviously was enough room to stand between the cars and not see over a measly 5' high fence because being even within a foot or two of that fence would not prevent an averaged sized individual from seeing over it to the street below. I know this is a fact for I have tested it myself while in the RR yard.

Time constraints prevent more analysis at this point as the topic is fairly exhausted, moribund.

It seems that time constraints have kept you from doing a lot of things, but thats ok - take as much time as you need to give a little more thought to the things Holland - not just to the Commission, but to Mark Lane as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...