Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 It's my opinion that your drawing outlining a potential hat is too big to be real, that's it. That's worthless, next time I wont bother asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 Yes, it's hilarious No I meant "joke" as in "ridicilous". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 So, let's see if I have this straight. I post an original interpretation of the shapes at the fence, http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...rentstrokes.png You think my outline of "a potential hat is too big to be real" but instead of saying that, you post this crap instead. http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i286/nit...wler147/ost.jpg This is a personal thing right? Nothing to do with research. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 So, let's see if I have this straight.I post an original interpretation of the shapes at the fence, http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...rentstrokes.png You think my outline of "a potential hat is too big to be real" but instead of saying that, you post this crap instead. http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i286/nit...wler147/ost.jpg This is a personal thing right? Nothing to do with research. Get over it. No, It's nothing personal Alan, I think you're a cool guy and do very useful studies, it's just that when you announce to the world that I dismiss the existance of hatman, then I do have a problem with that as my first post states the exact opposite of what you are saying I think. Duncan First things first, The crap you posted on M5 right after me & before I said anything about "dismissing", was intended as an insult & I'm glad you had the balls to admit it, at least I know where I stand with you now. As for the rest, it's madness & your mis-quoting me now. I never said you dismissed his existance(quote me!), I said I get the feeling this thread is only about dismissing Hatman & nothing else, then I clarified it for you in my next post since you misinterpreted what I meant by that statement. Now even after I made it clear for you by under-lining that I meant - "all you are interested in is dismissing Hatman as a shooter" - you are still confused & now have me saying things I never did. I was right to withdraw my earlier posts from this thread, it is no place for open-minded research, you can't progress with people who prefer to jerk around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 BIG Hint..................the last comment was a joke 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. 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...
Bill Miller Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 I don't know what you mean. Your response has no meaning or logic.Duncan I would have thought that Alan's 'no logic or meaning response' would be one you could understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Analyse this; http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...man/Feefyfo.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Analyse this;http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...man/Feefyfo.gif I did my own analysis of the hat in my opening posts. Your analysis is confusing to say the least. There is no hat in Bond4. All you found is a "V" shape amongst the foilage & if you had a copy of LIFE that shows the big Bond4 you would know that there is no way to differenciate the tiny light coloured area contained in that "V", from any of the small light coloured areas scattered everywhere else amongst the tree foilage. As my above gif demontrates, that "V" is way too large to be a that of a hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Your analysis is confusing to say the least.Only to you There is no hat in Bond4. I say there is Actually, Duncan ... your analysis's are always confusing to most of those who have seen them, thus your saying they are only con fusing to Alan only shows how out of touch with reality you have become. I am thinking that the only person who can take a ridiculously fuzzy image and make something of it is you and Ed O'Hagen. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Added a little illumination. Looks like a witch's hat to me. The only thing that relates 1, 2 & 3 is that they are all amongst the foilage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) The V shape is YOUR invention. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...man/Feefyfo.gif If you look closely within the boxed area on the left you can still see your numbers 1-3. The size of my "V" was guided by them. Edited November 20, 2007 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) If you look closely within the boxed area on the left you can still see your numbers 1-3. The size of my "V" was guided by them. That's where you have made the mistake Alan. You should have used the points of the peaks, and the point of the trough to make your V. The numbers are only a rough guide for those from the Magoo society. If you want to know who those people are, ask Bill I said I was guided by them, I did not say I used them exclusively. JHC! Edited November 20, 2007 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 You should have used the points of the peaks, and the point of the trough to make your V. The numbers are only a rough guide... When you say "rough guide", do you mean a mistake? Looks like your #2 is exactly that...... literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 You should have used the points of the peaks, and the point of the trough to make your V. The numbers are only a rough guide... When you say "rough guide", do you mean a mistake? Looks like your #2 is exactly that...... literally. Alan, Keeping in mind that Shorty is too short, is Duncan's "hat" in the exact same locus in all photos, disregarding other issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Keeping in mind that Shorty is too short, is Duncan's "hat" in the exact same locus in all photos, disregarding other issues?[/color][/b] Miles, please do me this favour. Compare what is seen in Thompson's drumscan to what was published in SSID. Then tell me why you are still using the hat shape in SSID to determine what it is you are seeing. I really don't understand it because I can plainly see the DS is far superior & it does not show a hat with this "through" in it. Bill was wrong to use it over & above the DS & in time he will recognise that. Thompson may have had a better copy at some point(better than even the DS)but he did not publish it in SSID & that is the one & only source of this misleading "hatman" shape. I will try to put better scans up by the end of the week for everyone to see & compare but as you have the book Miles, please give me your opinion. In the meantime Miles, I stand by my interpretation from the DS, it is one possibilty & more likely than "shorty". Okay as far as your question goes...... The area Duncan is pointing to in Bond4 is very close IMO to the area in M5 we are talking about. Now if Duncan had the LIFE issue with B4 in it he would know that he is most likely looking at foilage but he seems to think that Chris' scan is equal to the raw print in LIFE. He is wrong & he should ask Chris for his opinion since he doesn't trust mine. 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