Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[Miles Scull]

Forgot one point:

Miles, I am curious as to who drew in Ed's position on Stemmons Freeway so to get that line of sight from above ... do you know??? The reason I ask is because in Ed's story he was able to look down in JFK's car as the limo passed below him on the on-ramp. So is your LOS from Ed's car to the RR yard or is it really supposed to be Ed's actual LOS?

It's pretty clear, Bilbo, that you spend most of your daily & nightly time here on the Forum. Has it become a way for you to spit at people in derision? You know, "I'm big Bill & I know what's what & you do not."

Only until the past couple of weeks or so have I even been on this forum for a month or two ... if I did post anything it was far and few between. You should check your facts once in a while before making unfounded allegations.

One problem here. The sniper after firing would want to hide his rifle immediately. He would want to quickly pull it down to a point below the top of the picket fence, well below & thus out of Ed's sight. The sniper would not have held the rifle at port arms as Ed pantomimes & begin a stately march off toward the steam pipe through the steel of impeding cars blocking the march route. Ed would not have known how the sniper held his rifle because Ed could not have seen it as it was quickly secreted into a car trunk or broken down on the ground at the Holland spot.

One can assume all day long what a sniper would do and not do. All I know for sure that it would have been suicidal for Ed to subject himself to a lie detector test if he didn't really believe that he could pass it. Ed wanted to take such a test then and right up to the last time I spoke to his family.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK , Bilbo, your tone seems somewhat adjusted & conciliatory.

So, I'll make a quick response, but you'll have to understand that I simply do not have the time to devote to a topic that is tangential to my central research pursuits. Ed's an interesting topic , but after awhile, so far as I'm concerned at least, the topic just runs out of gas.

who drew in Ed's position on Stemmons Freeway so to get that line of sight

I did... If you carefully cross reference Ed's TMWKK segment, you can plot it to a tolerable accuracy, point to point.

The reason I ask is because in Ed's story he was able to look down in JFK's car as the limo passed below him on the on-ramp. So is your LOS from Ed's car to the RR yard or is it really supposed to be Ed's actual LOS?

Right, it's Ed's LOS if he were standing nearby to where he was sitting in the segment. From that point Ed could have seen the passing Limo, and as I have posited may well have done.

Only until the past couple of weeks or so have I even been on this forum for a month or two ... if I did post anything it was far and few between. You should check your facts once in a while before making unfounded allegations.

OK, fair enough. Good.

All I know for sure that it would have been suicidal for Ed to subject himself to a lie detector test if he didn't really believe that he could pass it. Ed wanted to take such a test then and right up to the last time I spoke to his family

OK, fair point. In counter, of course, one might reasonably ask, since polygraph techniques have been available in increasing availability since the late 1960s, why then hasn't Ed who can afford one,... why hasn't he just gotten someone like yourself to help him get one? It isn't complicated.

Ok, then, let's move on the other matters. You will hold your view & I mine. Fine.

[Miles Scull]

One can assume all day long what a sniper would do and not do.

Addendum:

Further evidence relating to the credibility of Ed Hoffman.

Richard C. Dodd was standing on the triple underpass at Z-313. He ran to the steam pipe area immediately soon after witnessing the assassination. There he met a special agent of the Katy RR. They then went to the Holland sniper spot.

Apparently the Special Agent of the Katy RR had been in position in the area of the steam pipe at Z-313 or even before that point in time. Yet this agent is not on record as having seen a person tossing a rifle to another person or as having seen anyone braking down a rifle behind the switch box there. Nor did the special agent report any such observation to Todd, which, of course, he would have done had he seen any of the Hoffman story as such.

Again, this problem of Ed's account is added to the many others.

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVHyFZuzGH4...ted&search=

Edited June 21, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Thomas Graves]

Bilbo, there you are again. Sorry, no time to waste on silly sophistries, the staple of your posts.

Bilbo, looks like you're squirming like a garter snake under a jack boot. I know, I know, a life time of being wrong & wrong in many ways.

It's pretty clear, Bilbo, that you spend most of your daily & nightly time here on the Forum. Has it become a way for you to spit at people in derision? You know, "I'm big Bill & I know what's what & you do not."

You mentioned some disability. OK, benefit of the doubt, maybe you are limited in your activities & must xxxxx as a survival device (read vice). Don't know.

Well, I'm sorry for you, but judging from your last post which squeals like a baby deprived of a pacifier, I must beat an embarrassed retreat from the spectacle of a mind becoming unbalanced. Not a pretty sight.

Best thing to do is to simply avoid replying to your posts, thus avoiding conflict. Will do. Hope you avoid replying to mine. That's good, now... [/b]

__________________________

Dear Mr. Scull,

What's with the "Bilbo" manure?

Why do you feel that you have to insult people with whom you disagree, in this case Bill Miller?

Is it your way of "defending yourself?" Why do you feel that you have to "defend" yourself? Do have a tendency to always presume that you are being attacked personally when someone disagrees with what you say?

Why do you always think that people who disagree with you are attacking you personally?

Were you traumatized as a child? Did the other kids taunt you unmercifully? If so, I'm very sorry and I hope that you eventually get over it.

In my humble opinion, you are the most offensive and offensive person on this forum...

I've gotten to the point that I don't even want to read your posts any longer simply because you are so vindictive and full of vitriol and you seem to need to vent your emotions on people with whom you disagree. How immature. It's a pity because you probably do make a good point from time to time, but who needs the aggravation and the stress?

I wish a moderator other than the mild-mannered and ever-so-diplomatic K.B. would censure you or at least give you a severe warning that your past behavior will not be tolerated on this forum in the future....

(Deleted _ _ _)

Sympathetically,

--Thomas

__________________________

Edited July 30, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Miles Scull]

Sympathetically,

--Thomas

Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep.

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Duncan,

Perhaps this is nearer the mark?

Eugene

Edited June 22, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Bill Miller]

So, I'll make a quick response, but you'll have to understand that I simply do not have the time to devote to a topic that is tangential to my central research pursuits. Ed's an interesting topic , but after awhile, so far as I'm concerned at least, the topic just runs out of gas.

Well it seems you have had lots of time to give to this thread ... its the quality spent that has been lacking IMO. I am trying to discern the difference in what you supposed may have happened to what you actually know.

If you carefully cross reference Ed's TMWKK segment, you can plot it to a tolerable accuracy, point to point.

This is what I thought you had done. Are you aware that the segment on Ed's story didn't actually show the exact spots that were being discussed in the show. For instance, one segment shows the Badge Man location when talking about where Ed saw the gunman ... that's not Ed's fault ... Turner's cameraman and editors made that error. Also, at the time of the interview on the highway ... the cameraman had to be out in the traffic to film Ed sitting overlooking the on-ramp. The location you drew in, if you were correct, must have been for convenience because then billboard was also an issue and the LOS you have given Ed would not have been effected by the billboard at all. In fact, in Ed's story he was standing along the road, not sitting. I also know he said the limo passed below him on the on-ramp, thus it is these types of things that made me suspicious that you wewre only assuming things that may not have been exactly right.

Right, it's Ed's LOS if he were standing nearby to where he was sitting in the segment. From that point Ed could have seen the passing Limo, and as I have posited may well have done.

I believe you are incorrect once again. Gary Mack is well aware of that location and he has said that Ed could have seen down in the car from that elevated location. The point I am raising is that the location you have attributed to Ed does not allow him to look down and see the President directly below him as the limo comes out from under the freeway and it does not align with the billboard which has always been understood to be a factor with critics who thought it would have blocked Ed's view. The critics, of course were proven in error on that point because the billboard was not high enough on the day of the assassination to have prevented Ed from seeing into the RR yard.

OK, fair point. In counter, of course, one might reasonably ask, since polygraph techniques have been available in increasing availability since the late 1960s, why then hasn't Ed who can afford one,... why hasn't he just gotten someone like yourself to help him get one? It isn't complicated.

It might seem complicated to you if you had bothered to find out that Ed had been repeatedly told over the years that there was no way to test a deaf mute. So if you thought that it was a matter of money, then once again you have assumed something without making the slightest attempt to be accurate when it came to your criticism of Ed. A few years back when I learned of this ... I took the time and expense to research this matter and discovered that there was a place in Chicago that had the means to give a lie detector to a deaf mute. Ed was happy to hear this and was anxious to go forth and prove to people once and for all that he told the truth. The test was said to have to be done in Chicago and the cost to get Ed there and to do the test was around $5000.00. I volunteered to pay the money to make it happen. At the eleventh hour (so to speak) the examiner discovered that Ed took a certain medication for his heart and said that it could effect the test and make it unreliable. I never found a way to get around that obstacle because Ed needed that medicine to survive.

So this is the point I have made from the beginning. Armchair researchers haven't a clue and often times base their opinions on assumptions and not facts because they have not bothered to actually do the needed research. And the funny thing about them is that no matter how many false assumptions that they have been shown to make in order to reach their conclusion - they seldom, if ever, change their mind. It is then that I think that they are the ones that should be given the lie detector test!

By the way, my name is spelled on each post I make ... you should do a better job in trying to get it correct.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

duplicate post deleted

Edited June 21, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

duplicate post deleted

Edited June 21, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Further evidence relating to the credibility of Ed Hoffman.

Richard C. Dodd was standing on the triple underpass at Z-313. He ran to the steam pipe area immediately soon after witnessing the assassination. There he met a special agent of the Katy RR. They then went to the Holland sniper spot.

The post assassination photographical record shows that no one left the underpass immediately. Holland also used the term immediately and later clarified that this meant about 2 minutes. One could walk from the underpass to the corner of Main and Houston Street in under two minutes.

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

Perhaps this is more accurate?

Eugene

EBC, what location are you trying to show here? Match the sunspots on the fence up to Moorman's photograph to pinpoint Duncan's alleged assassin.

Below are some more examples of perspective when it comes to decreased sizing the further from the camera one is seen in a film or photograph.

Example one shows Hargis(1) and Channey(2) riding on each side of the limo and about 20 feet apart. Note that Channey's cycle and helmet is smaller than that of Hargis's. Note that Bill Newman's head(3) is about 15 feet further away from Moorman's camera than Channey's head is and Newman's head shrinks even more. In the Moorman photo - the distance between Hudson's head and the alleged Duncan outline of what he sees as a head is around 40 feet or twice the distance between Hargis and Channey. This means that if what Duncan thinks is the head of an assassin is near the same size as the much closer the camera Hudson head is, then what Duncan sees as a human head is incorrect because from the greater distance it cannot be anywhere near the size of Hudson's head.

The same can be applied to each assassination image. I have offered similar examples in two more assassination photos. Example 2 shows Cheryl McKinnon on the ground and the Newman's just beyond her and the motorcycles just beyond the Newman's. Distances of less than 20 feet show a considerable shrinking of these peoples heads. Even the two cycles are seen on film as different sizes due to their relationship to the distance each is from the camera. Note that even in the Willis photo/example 3 - that the Martin and Hargis cycles share the same lane of traffic with one rider just slightly ahead of the other. Note how one cycle has shrunk in size on film just by being a few feet further away from the Willis camera than the other. (see A and It is these rules of perspective that dictates whether Duncan's alleged assassin can be real or not.

I hope these examples help those who find it difficult to understand how perspective works and how it can be applied when researching out a possibility thought to be seen within an image.

Bill Miller

Edited June 21, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

So, I'll make a quick response, but you'll have to understand that I simply do not have the time to devote to a topic that is tangential to my central research pursuits. Ed's an interesting topic , but after awhile, so far as I'm concerned at least, the topic just runs out of gas.

Well it seems you have had lots of time to give to this thread ... its the quality spent that has been lacking IMO. I am trying to discern the difference in what you supposed may have happened to what you actually know.

If you carefully cross reference Ed's TMWKK segment, you can plot it to a tolerable accuracy, point to point.

This is what I thought you had done. Are you aware that the segment on Ed's story didn't actually show the exact spots that were being discussed in the show. For instance, one segment shows the Badge Man location when talking about where Ed saw the gunman ... that's not Ed's fault ... Turner's cameraman and editors made that error. Also, at the time of the interview on the highway ... the cameraman had to be out in the traffic to film Ed sitting overlooking the on-ramp. The location you drew in, if you were correct, must have been for convenience because then billboard was also an issue and the LOS you have given Ed would not have been effected by the billboard at all. In fact, in Ed's story he was standing along the road, not sitting. I also know he said the limo passed below him on the on-ramp, thus it is these types of things that made me suspicious that you wewre only assuming things that may not have been exactly right.

Right, it's Ed's LOS if he were standing nearby to where he was sitting in the segment. From that point Ed could have seen the passing Limo, and as I have posited may well have done.

I believe you are incorrect once again. Gary Mack is well aware of that location and he has said that Ed could have seen down in the car from that elevated location. The point I am raising is that the location you have attributed to Ed does not allow him to look down and see the President directly below him as the limo comes out from under the freeway and it does not align with the billboard which has always been understood to be a factor with critics who thought it would have blocked Ed's view. The critics, of course were proven in error on that point because the billboard was not high enough on the day of the assassination to have prevented Ed from seeing into the RR yard.

OK, fair point. In counter, of course, one might reasonably ask, since polygraph techniques have been available in increasing availability since the late 1960s, why then hasn't Ed who can afford one,... why hasn't he just gotten someone like yourself to help him get one? It isn't complicated.

It might seem complicated to you if you had bothered to find out that Ed had been repeatedly told over the years that there was no way to test a deaf mute. So if you thought that it was a matter of money, then once again you have assumed something without making the slightest attempt to be accurate when it came to your criticism of Ed. A few years back when I learned of this ... I took the time and expense to research this matter and discovered that there was a place in Chicago that had the means to give a lie detector to a deaf mute. Ed was happy to hear this and was anxious to go forth and prove to people once and for all that he told the truth. The test was said to have to be done in Chicago and the cost to get Ed there and to do the test was around $5000.00. I volunteered to pay the money to make it happen. At the eleventh hour (so to speak) the examiner discovered that Ed took a certain medication for his heart and said that it could effect the test and make it unreliable. I never found a way to get around that obstacle because Ed needed that medicine to survive.

So this is the point I have made from the beginning. Armchair researchers haven't a clue and often times base their opinions on assumptions and not facts because they have not bothered to actually do the needed research. And the funny thing about them is that no matter how many false assumptions that they have been shown to make in order to reach their conclusion - they seldom, if ever, change their mind. It is then that I think that they are the ones that should be given the lie detector test!

By the way, my name is spelled on each post I make ... you should do a better job in trying to get it correct.

Bill Miller

As I said to you before, I simply don't have the time to answer your distortions & preposterous, inane arguments. Let's just leave it that you are provably wrong & that I don't have the time to waste on such nonsense. If you don't like my posts, just don't read them. Try it.

[Bill Miller]

The post assassination photographical record shows that no one left the underpass immediately.

That's not true as the whole timescale wasn't photographed or filmed. It's an unknown factor.

Duncan, I am not sure how you view the term 'immediately' and how that relates to a timescale, but did you know that the Bell film was not a continuous film and that when Bell swings back to the underpass in just about under a minute later that the men are still up there? That tells me that Holland was not that far off on his time estimate.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

So, I'll make a quick response, but you'll have to understand that I simply do not have the time to devote to a topic that is tangential to my central research pursuits. Ed's an interesting topic , but after awhile, so far as I'm concerned at least, the topic just runs out of gas.

Well it seems you have had lots of time to give to this thread ... its the quality spent that has been lacking IMO. I am trying to discern the difference in what you supposed may have happened to what you actually know.

If you carefully cross reference Ed's TMWKK segment, you can plot it to a tolerable accuracy, point to point.

This is what I thought you had done. Are you aware that the segment on Ed's story didn't actually show the exact spots that were being discussed in the show. For instance, one segment shows the Badge Man location when talking about where Ed saw the gunman ... that's not Ed's fault ... Turner's cameraman and editors made that error. Also, at the time of the interview on the highway ... the cameraman had to be out in the traffic to film Ed sitting overlooking the on-ramp. The location you drew in, if you were correct, must have been for convenience because then billboard was also an issue and the LOS you have given Ed would not have been effected by the billboard at all. In fact, in Ed's story he was standing along the road, not sitting. I also know he said the limo passed below him on the on-ramp, thus it is these types of things that made me suspicious that you wewre only assuming things that may not have been exactly right.

Right, it's Ed's LOS if he were standing nearby to where he was sitting in the segment. From that point Ed could have seen the passing Limo, and as I have posited may well have done.

I believe you are incorrect once again. Gary Mack is well aware of that location and he has said that Ed could have seen down in the car from that elevated location. The point I am raising is that the location you have attributed to Ed does not allow him to look down and see the President directly below him as the limo comes out from under the freeway and it does not align with the billboard which has always been understood to be a factor with critics who thought it would have blocked Ed's view. The critics, of course were proven in error on that point because the billboard was not high enough on the day of the assassination to have prevented Ed from seeing into the RR yard.

OK, fair point. In counter, of course, one might reasonably ask, since polygraph techniques have been available in increasing availability since the late 1960s, why then hasn't Ed who can afford one,... why hasn't he just gotten someone like yourself to help him get one? It isn't complicated.

It might seem complicated to you if you had bothered to find out that Ed had been repeatedly told over the years that there was no way to test a deaf mute. So if you thought that it was a matter of money, then once again you have assumed something without making the slightest attempt to be accurate when it came to your criticism of Ed. A few years back when I learned of this ... I took the time and expense to research this matter and discovered that there was a place in Chicago that had the means to give a lie detector to a deaf mute. Ed was happy to hear this and was anxious to go forth and prove to people once and for all that he told the truth. The test was said to have to be done in Chicago and the cost to get Ed there and to do the test was around $5000.00. I volunteered to pay the money to make it happen. At the eleventh hour (so to speak) the examiner discovered that Ed took a certain medication for his heart and said that it could effect the test and make it unreliable. I never found a way to get around that obstacle because Ed needed that medicine to survive.

So this is the point I have made from the beginning. Armchair researchers haven't a clue and often times base their opinions on assumptions and not facts because they have not bothered to actually do the needed research. And the funny thing about them is that no matter how many false assumptions that they have been shown to make in order to reach their conclusion - they seldom, if ever, change their mind. It is then that I think that they are the ones that should be given the lie detector test!

By the way, my name is spelled on each post I make ... you should do a better job in trying to get it correct.

Bill Miller

As I said to you before, I simply don't have the time to answer your distortions & preposterous, inane arguments. Let's just leave it that you are provably wrong & that I don't have the time to waste on such nonsense. If you don't like my posts, just don't read them. Try it.

Miles, you seemed to have time to color your type and shrink my response to make it hard to see and all soon after my post was on the forum. You also seem to have had the time to give a silly response to Thomas Graves in your reply #123.

Maybe if you'd allocate your time a little wiser, then you'd have the time to address the points being raised about your suppositions and assumptions that have been called into question. After all, this is a debate concerning the evidence of the JFK assassination - is it not?

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

The post assassination photographical record shows that no one left the underpass immediately.

That's not true as the whole timescale wasn't photographed or filmed. It's an unknown factor.

Correct Duncan, too true...

But my argument is that even if Dodd was tardy (he did pause to see the action of the motorcycle), he, nevertheless, did proceed in short order to the steam pipe area, as Dodd says he did do. There he met the Katy special officer. It is reasonable to conclude that that officer had been in the steam pipe area since before Z-313.

And, thus, he (as well as the spectators who were photographed standing at the balustrade next to the famous switch box AT the moment the limo passed through the underpass),... thus the special agent & the others located in steam pipe area would have seen Ed's apocryphal rifle toss & switch box tool kit charade.

It's embarrassing.

[Miles Scull]

As I said to you before, I simply don't have the time to answer your distortions & preposterous, inane arguments. Let's just leave it that you are provably wrong & that I don't have the time to waste on such nonsense. If you don't like my posts, just don't read them. Try it.

Miles, you seemed to have time to color your type and shrink my response to make it hard to see and all soon after my post was on the forum. You also seem to have had the time to give a silly response to Thomas Graves in your reply #123.

Maybe if you'd allocate your time a little wiser, then you'd have the time to address the points being raised about your suppositions and assumptions that have been called into question. After all, this is a debate concerning the evidence of the JFK assassination - is it not?

Bill Miller

Reduced your post so as not to waste space. Assumed you would remember your own post.

No, this trout ain't takin this bait... Notice the metaphor here. Somebody's in a rowboat trolling, trolling with the lure of specious, silly arguments.