Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[Bill Miller]

Thx EBC. Your comparison illustration sorts things out clearly.

Duncan's shooter is the goods. One might say D's shooter gains in stature, not in the perspective, but in the sense of being the real thing.

See response #158 and then promote Duncan's assassin if you like, at least you will have to do so in light of the added information I provided.

Also, in speaking with Gary Mack Thursday to see if there were any photos taken on 11/22/63 soon after the shooting showing the stretch of fence from inside the RR yard that ran east and west - there were none known to exist at this time. There is some film footage showing the RR yard and the positioning of the cars there which do not show them to be so plentiful in my view as what has been stated. I then asked Gary to look at the Squire Haskins photos taken from the air and above the RR yard the weekend of the assassination. I asked Gary to look specifically for any barriers that would have been on the ground to keep people from pulling in and hitting the fence. Gary spotted some RR ties that had been placed on the ground to prevent this from happening. To the extent they were used and how the cars were positioned is still unclear to me.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention this seeing that there are a couple of people who aren't going to accept the problem with perspective and how it works, so maybe they would like to address the angle change on the LOS matter. Any questions???

Bill Miller

All I'll say here is that your change of LOS is a false one, as is your perspective analysis in this instance. So what if he had to shoot between heads. These guys were no amateurs. Eugene is correct, the figure is well within the perspective of this photograph. You are the only one who doesn't get it. Using YOUR strategy, Take the furthest man to the right and take his head back up to the fence to see the difference.

Duncan, that is YOUR illustration with the insert - not mine. I even went as far as to cite the post YOU made using it. Anyone sitting in front of their computer can place a protractor on the screen and see the LOS change between YOUR enlargement and YOUR wide view line of sight. Posting a large crop of the alleged shooter with the President missing from the picture isn't going to do anything to help your case ... the full version YOU created can be seen in post #51 of this thread.

I find it amazing that I used YOUR images and pointed out not only a flaw within it, but a flaw that can be easily checked by anyone reading this forum, and you still want to pretend that I somehow have falsely stated the facts. I invite anyone with the software to do so to check the angle of the two lines you used and they will have no choice but to see that they are not the same. YOUR illustration can be seen in YOUR post #51. I certainly do not have the ability to go into your post and alter your illustration. Sometimes it is better to just admit the error than to make it worse by pretending that it doesn't exist. The latter only makes it look as if you purposely must have done this because you would go so far as to try and deny the angle change despite it being right there within YOUR own illustration. Are you sure you wish to hold to that path ??? It would seem to be smarter to try and explain away how it changed rather than to try and pretend it doesn't exist.

Bill

Edited June 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Take the furthest man to the right and take his head back up to the fence to see the difference.[/b]

Duncan - do the same with the outline drawn in at the fence in the wide view. You show an enlargement of the outline and then attempt to make a comparison using the small version without the outline ... one can only guess where your outline starts and stops without the lines in place. It is obvious to me what you are doing. I know that you have a large image of Moorman's photo with that outline drawn right at the spot at the fence that we are talking about because I have seen it posted before - I invite you to post it and then we will do the head comparisons. What we will find is that the two heads vary little in size ON THE PHOTO despite one being so much further away from Moorman's camera. The shrinkage ratio will be absent.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

The fact is that the line of site has not changed in my original trajectory. If any changes have taken place, they have been changed by mainipulation from you. My line of site based on the image in the Moorman photograph is flawless give or take the odd insignificant degee. Anyone can test the trajectory without my line using the original Moorman. No amount of software manipulation by you will change the true trajectory.

Duncan

Have you gone back to post #51 and tested your angle variance? Is it your position that I somehow got into the forum software and manipulated YOUR illustration? I can tell you this much .... you will not worm out of this one, pal. You have now gone from having the opportunity to admit your error to accusing me of manipulating the photo illustration in #51 that only you had access to.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Have you gone back to post #51 and tested your angle variance? Is it your position that I somehow got into the forum software and manipulated YOUR illustration? I can tell you this much .... you will not worm out of this one, pal. You have now gone from having the opportunity to admit your error to accusing me of manipulating the photo illustration in #51 that only you had access to.

Bill

If YOU change MY line of site, that's manipulation in anyone's book. Perhaps readjusted is a better term to use. I admit no error because there is no error. Take a point at the top of the barrel and the bottom of the barrel, draw a line and see where it goes. It's no great science. I don't think anyone will understand your analysis because in a nutshell, it's bonkers.

Duncan

Duncan, I fail to believe that you are that dumb as not to understand that these were YOUR crops - not mine. I merely took YOUR insert and slid it over onto YOUR other line in the full view image. The difference between the two angles is YOUR making. Your argument is as silly as my copying and pasting something YOU had written only to have you claim that I somehow changed the wording - its absurd! Like I said before .... Anyone can go to YOUR post #51 and put a protractor on YOUR two lines and it will tell them that they are not angles the same way.

Bill

Edited June 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bill..The line over the barrel in the crop is merely for showing the barrel and is not meant to show the trajectory. Now like you, I believe YOU are not so dumb to not realise this. I have stated before, in 2002 in fact, that the LOS can clearly be seen in the full wide image, give or take the odd insignificant degree. You also fail to take in to consideration that the Moorman pic is taken slightly after the headshot which would further add a degree of inaccuracy or correction for LOS movement between the headshot and the Moorman pic.

Duncan

While we are taking into consideration the timing of Moorman's photo, then I assume that the limo is not where it was when the fatal head shot hit the President, thus your LOS is also incorrect ... would you not agree?

Bill

Edited June 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

This enlargement was posted by Duncan MacRae on Lancer's forum. The post number and information is below.

Duncan MacRae Wed Dec-14-05 07:17 PM

Member since Jan 18th 2005

342 posts Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list

#41103, "RE: Follow The Line Down The Barrel"

In response to Reply # 57

http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...=&mode=full

When the outline of the alleged shooter that Duncan created is overlaid onto the large Moorman photo so that the backgrounds match - it is easier to compare its size to that of Emmett Hudson. It has been said by a select few on this forum that Duncan's figure is not too large to be human, but yet at a much greater distance from Moorman's camera than Hudson was - its head appears to be every bit as large as Hudson's.

A picture speaks a thousand words it is said. Sometimes those words can be hard to read when the picture is made small enough, but in this enlargement that Duncan posted on Lancer on 12/14/05 - one doesn't have to strain their eyes to see if the outline Duncan created is smaller than Hudson's head as it should have been if it was a real person.

I can hardly wait to see the next attempt at side stepping this obvious fact.

Bill Miller

Edited June 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I thought that bullets travel down the barrel ... maybe guns work differedntly where you live. And while we are taking into consideration the timing of Moorman's photo, then I assume that the limo is not where it was when the fatal head shot hit the President, thus your LOS is also incorrect ... would you not agree?

Bill

The rifle would have moved relative to the movement of the limo during the tracking of the presidents head by the shooter. No I don't agree..the LOS would also still have been relative at Moorman with acceptable minimal insignificant degrees of inacuracy in the given time frame

Duncan

Duncan

10' to the Hudson tree?

Have you considered the head movement vis-à-vis trajectories from a shot originating from midget man's alleged position at the fence? They do not work.

Yet your sniper's trajectories do.

On the subject of the parking lot being congested with a sea of cars (Holland) which were bumper to bumper (Holland) so that there was not an inch that was not cars...

Mr. HOLLAND - Well. immediately after the shots was fired, I run around the end of this overpass, behind the fence to see if I could see anyone up there behind the fence.

Mr. STERN - That is the picket fence?

Mr. HOLLAND - That is the picket fence.

Mr. STERN - On the north side of Elm Street?

Mr. HOLLAND - Of course, this was this sea of cars in there and it was just a big-it wasn't an inch in there that wasn't automobiles

here is an aerial shot on Nov. 23, 1963, which Gary Mack adjusts to Nov. 24, 1963:

1.) Notice that the cars parked along the long leg of the picket fence are parked right up against the fence.

2.) Notice that there are no objects down along the north face of the fence abutting the fence except the cars nosed close into the fence or backed close into the fence.

3.) Notice the area of the lot just to the east side of the steam pipe. You can see a light color pickup truck parked a few feet from the steam pipe. It's clear that cars could have been, would have been & were jammed in parked along the steam pipe abutting the steam pipe at noon on th 11-22-63.

This photographic evidence coupled with the eyewitness evidence of Sam Holland (and other corroborating witnesses) shows that Ed Hoffman's alleged sniper would not have had clear passage to do what Ed says he did: i.e., walk freely to the steam pipe with a rifle held at port arms. For the sniper to have reached the steam pipe for the alleged "rifle toss" he would have had to have weaved & squeezed in & around the array of parked cars. He had no open & direct passage. This would have slowed & retarded Ed's sniper movement to the steam pipe.

The real sniper & the real sniper's spotter & the real sniper's team of advisers would have realized the extreme hazards & illogicality of Ed's proposed exit strategy. It would be a death trap on the face of it!

If Ed's exit plan is adopted then Ed's assassin is executing a plan of escape that is, in its conception, the exact oppose of a plan designed to succeed. The assassin & his assistant walk to where there is an extremely high likelihood that they will be seen, and seen by any number of witnesses who are in the area of the switch boxes to view the motorcade. In other words, the assassin & his advisers, realizing the dangers, would have first of all have ruled out Ed's scenario as being the worst possible exit strategy, the one plan most likely to fail, the one plan most likely to expose the assassin to apprehension & death. Conclusion: Ed's dog don't hunt.

[Bill Miller]

No side stepping from me Bill. Let's continue.

You are incuding the hat of my shooter in your overall facial comparison to Hudson who I don't believe is wearing a hat. Correct me and show me if i'm wrong.

Outline Hudsons head perfectly, or the man to his left's head, add a hat to the best of your ability so that we can see his head shape, including hat and realistically compare both. Here's my attempt. I noticed in your comparison you conveniently let out the man furthest to the right. I've put him back in the pic and added a hat for a realistic comparison. As you can see, your analysis is way off. If you think you can do a more realistic comparison using the same man, let's see what you have to offer.

Duncan

Duncan, you do know that the man next to Hudson is closer to Moorman's camera than he is - right? Go back to post 135 and look at the examples once again. From Cheryl McKinn on to Bill Newman is less than 20 feet ... do you not see how drastic the head sizes dropped between those two locations. The distance between Hudson and the spot at the fence that you have chosen is double that, thus your alleged shooters head should be MUCH smaller than what it is in your outline. Don't take my word for it ... call a local school who teaches art or photography and ask them if it would be ok for you to email them a photo and show what I have said and see if it isn't true. Just look at the SS agents heads compared to AJ Millican wearing the hard hat in the Willis photo. Millican is hardly 15 feet away from the car and his head is drastically smaller than the agents heads. Your figure is far too big to even be in the ballpark and there is nothing you can do about it other than not to show it to people qualified to tell you better so not to have admit that you screwed up on this one.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

On the subject of the parking lot being congested with a sea of cars (Holland) which were bumper to bumper (Holland) so that there was not an inch that was not cars...

Miles, you seem to like to use Holland's figure of speech where he says "sea of cars" and how they were bumper to bumper. It seems obvious that Holland referenced the RR yard as a whole as looking like this. With that said, look at the photos taken by Jim Murry in Trask book "That Day in Dallas, or the Martin film, or the Jimmy Darnell film, or the Don Cook footage of the RR yard minutes after the shooting and point out the 'bumper to bumper' cars. In recently speaking to Gary Mack - we agreed that this figure of speech that Holland used was a dumb thing to say. Cars could not have been bumper to bumper literally or no one would be able to get their car out of there. Holland didn't have to climb over cars no more than Connally was "driven down into the floor" of the limo, which was another figure of speech that Holland exaggerated.

So I ask that the films and photos be looked at for which would be more accurate - Holland's descriptive figure of speech or actual films and photos showing how things really were at the time ... I am inclined to believe the photos and films unless shown they were altered.

Bill

Edited June 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I agree with everything you say Miles. Any shooter would have been aware of the suicidal risks invoved taking Ed's route. It's just lunacy to even consider this.

Duncan, one might also say that any shooter would have thought it to be suicide to stand behind a fence with a tower watchman positioned behind him and shoot at the President of the United States, but it didn't seem to stop him any more than you are trying to sell the idea that some lunatic stood on a car and took such a risk. Of course when you have someone spotting for you who has a fake SS badge - maybe the risk are not so great any more.

And about writing off the Hat Man. Does it not seem funny to you that witnesses put the sound of one of the shots at the Hat Man location which is where the smoke came through the trees at that same instant and yet you quickly write that spot off, but choose a location where no shot was heard, nor was any smoke seen coming from that location along the fence ... how do you justify your conclusions?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Duplicate post deleted.

Edited June 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

And about writing off the Hat Man. Does it not seem funny to you that witnesses put the sound of one of the shots at the Hat Man location which is where the smoke came through the trees at that same instant and yet you quickly write that spot off, but choose a location where no shot was heard, nor was any smoke seen coming from that location along the fence ... how do you justify your conclusions?

Bill

[/b]

Before I answer, lets get some facts on record.

My shooter is 33 ft approx from the corner of the fence.

Give me an approximate same distance for hatman.

Give me your distance of the big tree from the corner of the fence.

Re: Your witness hearing shots. Haven't you heard of silencers?

Re The smoke. Holland stated that the smoke was 8 to 10 ft from the ground. Isn't it possible with the south westerly wind that the smoke could also travel that same distance east at the same time? Smoke disperses quickly. Holland could have seen the smoke in the wrong location

Duncan

The Hat Man location is between 10 to 15 feet from the corner of the fence. When looking perpendicular to the fence - the Hat Man would have been to the left of the Hudson tree - the right of that tree when viewed from an angle from Moorman's location. The Hudson tree can be found on Don's map which should show it pretty close to being in line with the corner of the fence.

The accoustic findings gave an estimate of about 8 feet from the corner of the fence with a 5 foot leeway ... meaning that the shooter could have been as far as 13 feet from the corner of the fence. This is the area where no less than 5 witnesses on the underpass saw the smoke come through the trees. I supposed that the witnesses on the underpass who said they saw the smoke could have fallen under some mass-hallucination where they all got it wrong, but then I cannot see how the Wiegman film could have been altered to match their observations if they all had got it wrong. And yes, smoke disperses quickly if cast into a stiff wind. However, gun smoke has a heavier density than air and it can drift for a long ways depending on the air flow it passes through. A gun propels the smoke out the end of the barrel and the smoke spreads out the further from the gun it gets. The smoke seen in the Wiegman film is still holding together as it comes through the trees. What do you think?

And yes, I have heard of silencers, but I never heard of any witnesses saying they saw a floating torso of an oversized assassin elevated above the stockade fence. Bowers described just two men - one in a plaid coat and the other heavy set individual in dark clothing.

Edited June 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You've copied and pasted the same post after my response.

Duncan

Thanks for the heads up ... I too have been having problems with duplicate post the last few days. I will delete it.

[Miles Scull]

I thought that bullets travel down the barrel ... maybe guns work differedntly where you live. And while we are taking into consideration the timing of Moorman's photo, then I assume that the limo is not where it was when the fatal head shot hit the President, thus your LOS is also incorrect ... would you not agree?

Bill

The rifle would have moved relative to the movement of the limo during the tracking of the presidents head by the shooter. No I don't agree..the LOS would also still have been relative at Moorman with acceptable minimal insignificant degrees of inacuracy in the given time frame

Duncan

Duncan

10' to the Hudson tree?

Have you considered the head movement vis-à-vis trajectories from a shot originating from midget man's alleged position at the fence? They do not work.

Yet your sniper's trajectories do.

On the subject of the parking lot being congested with a sea of cars (Holland) which were bumper to bumper (Holland) so that there was not an inch that was not cars...

Mr. HOLLAND - Well. immediately after the shots was fired, I run around the end of this overpass, behind the fence to see if I could see anyone up there behind the fence.

Mr. STERN - That is the picket fence?

Mr. HOLLAND - That is the picket fence.

Mr. STERN - On the north side of Elm Street?

Mr. HOLLAND - Of course, this was this sea of cars in there and it was just a big-it wasn't an inch in there that wasn't automobiles

here is an aerial shot on Nov. 23, 1963, which Gary Mack adjusts to Nov. 24, 1963:

1.) Notice that the cars parked along the long leg of the picket fence are parked right up against the fence.

2.) Notice that there are no objects down along the north face of the fence abutting the fence except the cars nosed close into the fence or backed close into the fence.

3.) Notice the area of the lot just to the east side of the steam pipe. You can see a light color pickup truck parked a few feet from the steam pipe. It's clear that cars could have been, would have been & were jammed in parked along the steam pipe abutting the steam pipe at noon on th 11-22-63.

This photographic evidence coupled with the eyewitness evidence of Sam Holland (and other corroborating witnesses) shows that Ed Hoffman's alleged sniper would not have had clear passage to do what Ed says he did: i.e., walk freely to the steam pipe with a rifle held at port arms. For the sniper to have reached the steam pipe for the alleged "rifle toss" he would have had to have weaved & squeezed in & around the array of parked cars. He had no open & direct passage. This would have slowed & retarded Ed's sniper movement to the steam pipe.

The real sniper & the real sniper's spotter & the real sniper's team of advisers would have realized the extreme hazards & illogicality of Ed's proposed exit strategy. It would be a death trap on the face of it!

If Ed's exit plan is adopted then Ed's assassin is executing a plan of escape that is, in its conception, the exact oppose of a plan designed to succeed. The assassin & his assistant walk to where there is an extremely high likelihood that they will be seen, and seen by any number of witnesses who are in the area of the switch boxes to view the motorcade. In other words, the assassin & his advisers, realizing the dangers, would have first of all have ruled out Ed's scenario as being the worst possible exit strategy, the one plan most likely to fail, the one plan most likely to expose the assassin to apprehension & death. Conclusion: Ed's dog don't hunt.

I agree with everything you say Miles. Any shooter would have been aware of the suicidal risks involved taking Ed's route. It's just lunacy to even consider this. I haven't looked in to the hatman trajectory possibilities because I write it off instantly judging by the position of the supposed hat in Moorman. The reason I asked about the distance of the tree is because I have a dvd where Hudson states that the smoke came from around 15ft to the right of the tree.

Good Duncan

Glad you agree. Interesting about the dvd you mention where Hudson talks about the smoke. Which dvd is that?

Duncan, a word with you on the subject of Bill Miller. As you will know from several posts of mine on this thread I have stated that I have undertaken, as a matter of policy, to not engage in forum post exchanges with Miller for these reasons:

1.) I do not consider that what Miller says is fact based in a sense of rigor & exactitude. Thus, my arguing with Miller about his nonsense is profitless & a waste of my time.

2.) I want to avoid being inveigled, as I have been by Miller, into a trade of insults which is a violation of forum rules.

In order to avoid conflict I have not replied to any of Miller's recent posts. Miller knows that I will not do so. I have invited Miller to not address any posts directly to me, again for the purpose of avoiding conflict.

Unfortunately, Miller continues to seek confrontation & conflict with me as can be seen in his post on this thread, No. 176, where again I find his statements specious & provably wrong & not meriting my waste of time in reply.

Why, knowing my position, does Miller continue his sarcastic insults when I have stated repeatedly to him & to the forum moderator, Antti Hynonen, that I will not be drawn out to wasting my time?

There is something that I should point out to the moderators & to Antti Hynonen in particular:

There is currently a thread on the forum which is titled : I'm really disgusted with having to constantly LOG IN

In this thread Miller accuses a member participating on this thread, Michael Hogan, of being guilty of "something" which Miller has personally observed Hogan do, which if known to the forum would bring shame to Hogan. Miller is elaborate & pointedly insinuating in his intimidation of Michael Hogan by this brute force MaCarthyism which condemns Hogan of some nameless moral turpitude. Miller proclaims that as an angel, he, Miller will not publish Hogan's sin to the forum, but taunts Hogen to reveal Hogan's horrid secret, which secret Hogan does not have any knowledge of so says Hogan.

This gross, repetitious, insulting, obscene abuse of Hogan ( a kindly, helpful forum member) by Miller is the primary reason motivating me to avoid Miller.

I would invite John Simkin & Andy Walker to take close notice this outrage, which has become the hallmark & signature of Miller's forum behavior.

I invite Antti Hynonen to make good on his admonition.

Miles