Alan Healy Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 You started the thread to dismiss "Hatman" as a shooter because you think you found the same shape in Bond. From the first post. In this case the hat does fit, putting an end to the claim that "Hatman" appears only in Moorman 5.This discovery also rules out completely, the possibility that "Hatman" could have been a shooter. Bond 8 was taken much later, and no shooter would have stayed in his shooting position as the crowds headed towards the knoll, and in to the parking area behind the fence. That's all well & good as an idea but it seems like you'd already made your mind up before you started & are not interested at all in a shooter at the position Holland ran to & where the muddy footprints were found. I don't agree with what you think you found in Bond4 & 8, it's most likely foilage & like my previous drawing on the M5DS crop suggests, it's not a hat shape we should even be looking for. That is also why you drew the ridiculous shape at the Hatman position right after I posted my interpretation & using the same crop. Your not interested in him as a shooter. That is my impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 Alan & Duncan..... Just keeping in mind that Sam also mentioned two sets of footprints leaving in different directions... See Post 231 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...225#entry120445 B..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 The difference between Duncan The LOS from Shorty to Moorman is not identical to the LOS from Shorty to JFK. Therefore, from JFK's point of view Shorty's alleged "hat" looses its brim & Shorty sinks further down below & behind the fence for his shot through the fence. Shorty's hat ceases to be a hat, or becomes a brimless blob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 The difference between our 2 drawings Alan is that mine was meant to be ridiculous to show how ridiculous your drawing was .Duncan Maybe you can actually show what's wrong with my interpretation without resorting to farce but, I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 I wasn't having a go at you Alan.... The difference between our 2 drawings Alan is that mine was meant to be ridiculous to show how ridiculous your drawing was . Duncan Your contridicting yourself, as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 (edited) Alan & Duncan.....Just keeping in mind that Sam also mentioned two sets of footprints leaving in different directions... See Post 231 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...225#entry120445 B..... Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman : 7H107: “ numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going in different directions.”…Holland also gave a similar description to the (WC..6H245-246).Later Holland had stated that the marks were men’s footprints and that he was puzzled by their narrow grouping, “ That was a mystery to me, that they didn’t extend further than from one end of the bumper to the other. That’s as far as they would go. It looked like a lion pacing a cage”.. Holland gave a possible explanation, “Just to the west of the station wagon, there were two set of footprints that left…….I noticed these two footprints leaving : now they could have stepped out between the second and third cars on the gravel or they could’ve got in the trunk compartment of this car and pulled the lid down, which would have been very, very easy. ( Taped interview, Nov30,66)..The trunk compartments of the cars were not searched, someone could have returned later and driven the car out of the parking lot. Should of saved these already sorry B. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...SSIDHolland.jpg http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...MooreSSIDM5.jpg These footprints where all at the "hatman" location, what do you think of that Duncan? On the car bumper, on the horizontal fence post & all on the ground. Maybe your man really was floating since they found nothing there? Edited November 18, 2007 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 So what? If the low quality Bond photos are all you have. It's a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 If the only purpose of this thread is to dismiss "Hatman"(which is the impression I'm getting) then please ignore this post.I started the thread to actually help confirm the existance of Hatman, so who do you think is out to get hatman? it certainly isn't me. Even Bill said he wishes I was correct and can see that what I am doing is the exact opposite of your dismiss the hatman theory. I can only assume you are talking about Miles who also I believe has never said that hatman is not real, he disputes the size and distance from the fence of hatman. Correct me if I am wrong Miles Duncan Shorty doesn't have time to manipulate his Remington XP-100 for the shot that occurred & of course he does not place the barrel between the paling points. http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s115/mi...tman--1-1-9.jpg Miles, can't you see how the M5 in SSID is inferior to the drumscan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 So what? If the low quality Bond photos are all you have. It's a joke. And what are the quality of the Bond photos which I have? They are better quality than any of those you have produced in my opinion. Duncan QUOTE(Bernice Moore @ Nov 18 2007, 03:45 AM) Alan & Duncan..... Just keeping in mind that Sam also mentioned two sets of footprints leaving in different directions... See Post 231 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...225#entry120445 B..... Thanks Bernice Duncan I'm not clear where exactly Holland says that the two sets were leaving in DIFFERENT directions. As far as I can find Holland did not say this. He said that the two sets went in the same direction. Please supply or cite exact source, please. Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 The difference between our 2 drawings Alan is that mine was meant to be ridiculous to show how ridiculous your drawing was .Duncan Maybe you can actually show what's wrong with my interpretation without resorting to farce but, I doubt it. Alan, I've noticed you have a habit of throwing your toys out of the pram when you can't understand the meaning of a simple sentence. My reply was concise, if you can't understand it, that's tough. Duncan You have nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 So what? If the low quality Bond photos are all you have. It's a joke. And what are the quality of the Bond photos which I have? They are better quality than any of those you have produced in my opinion. Duncan It's still a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 I wasn't having a go at you Alan.... The difference between our 2 drawings Alan is that mine was meant to be ridiculous to show how ridiculous your drawing was . Duncan Your contridicting yourself, as usual. I was not having go at you in the first quote, I am now because your self proclaimed your psychic powers of reading my mind are as useless as the powers of Mystic Meg Duncan Simply question, why is my interpretation "ridiculous"? Give me something I can work with for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 Again. From the first post. In this case the hat does fit, putting an end to the claim that "Hatman" appears only in Moorman 5.This discovery also rules out completely, the possibility that "Hatman" could have been a shooter. That is a statement from someone whos's already made his mind up. Not someone open to ideas. No powers needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 I don't know what you mean. Your response has no meaning or logic. How can you can conclude it has no meaning or logic if you "don't know what I mean"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 It's a statement that states that I do not believe that hatman was a shooter. nothing more, nothing less. Based on shapes you see amongst foilage in low quality Bond scans, shapes you can't even keep in one place. Great, very "important". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now