If The Hat Don't Fit

[Alan Healy]

I'm sure Gary won't mind me quoting him here again since I made it clear I wanted to.

I asked him what he personally thinks of the shape at the fence & whether he looked at this area with Jack when they did their BM work....

Alan,

I have never believed the object was a hat. If it were a hat, then the wearer's face was below it and also below the top of the fence; in other words, at that crucial moment, he wasn't watching the motorcade. That makes no sense to me, therefore it must not be a hat.

S.M. Holland told Thompson the object looked to him as if he was looking down the barrel of a gun, and that's certainly a possibility.

Yes, during the Badge Man days in the 80s, Jack also made blowups of that area, but we were never able to figure out what the shape was. What is most significant, however, is that no corresponding shape appears in that spot in any other picture taken that weekend. The logical conclusion is that the shape is a person.

The image folks have been examining is a fairly accurate reproduction of a page from SSID, but that version is a terrible representation of the actual Moorman photo. My memory is that "Hat Man" first appeared with someone touting the James Files story.

Gary

[Alan Healy]

The best I could do with the LIFE Bond4;

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...d4hud-fence.png

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...cropatfence.png

[Bill Miller]

The work that was done on the photo has produced a shape remarkably like a fedora style hat, no one concocted that, it's there, whether we like it or not.

Was it there before the work was done?

IMO? Unlikely but, I don't know for sure.

The image of the hat was there in the print. Groden told me years ago that the contrast of the print is created by the exposure of the copy negative. Robert says that there was nothing in that copy negative that wasn't in the original print that it was made from. The same would apply to Jack's Badge Man images. It was for that reason that Thompson went to the plaza to look for something in the RR yard that could have accounted for the shape. Josiah's investigation showed that the stationary objects found in the RR yard were not the cause of the shape seen at the fence. What puzzles me is what motive could someone have for not seeing the obvious. After all, a shot was heard from that location and smoke was seen coming from that spot. Holland even mentioned all the cigarette butts and foot prints at that location. Because of the upward view of Moorman's LOS to the fence - we can rule out it being a car or a truck. It's certainly not a RR car or the train tower. So how far of a stretch is it that it was in fact someone who was positioned behind the fence from where the shot was heard and from where the smoke was seen coming from. Did all it take to confuse the matter was Duncan pointing at a bunch of tree leaves seen at a totally different elevation, not to mention a different left to right angle, to cause doubt as to the most logical choice that it could have been?

Some people have posted as if the Moorman photo shows the moment that JFK was shot, but thats a mistake made on their part. The limo rolled forward another 3 to 4 feet from the time of the head shot hitting its mark to the point of Moorman taking her photo. Put yourselves in Hat Man's position whether he be an observer or an actual shooter ... would you hang a banner over the fence to draw attention to yourself or would you stand just far enough back so to see the street while trying not to be recognized by any onlookers. I recall Royce, Tony and I standing at the Hat Man location and thinking how easy it would have been to have laid the barrel of a gun between the slats and merely pull the trigger when the President crossed the sights of the gun. Immediately one could easily pull the barrel back at the same time they started stepping back from the fence, which means all one would see is the top of their hat. I sometimes think that the Badge Man figure has influenced how people think shooters would have conducted themselves along the fence. The most obvious difference is that Badge Man had to elevate himself high enough to shoot over the concrete wall. Someone standing along the westward stretch of fence didn't have that problem, thus there was no need to elevate themselves high above the fence. The one thing Bowers didn't do was to give a height description of the men he testified about. That description may have been helpful, but at the same time a 5'6" man could look from Moorman's location just as tall as a man 6' tall by standing just slightly closer to the fence. Here is another observation not previously discussed. How to we know that part of the man's face isn't visible??? His body is seen in silhouette because of the sky seen behind him, so where do the fence slats stop and the man/or object begins ... no one can answer that question without another duplicate view being made on the day of the assassination. If you just fired a shot or was watching the shooting take place - how long would it take to tilt your head forward, thus using the hat to obscure a view of your face from the street. In fact, when I look at the hat shape - that is exactly how I interpret the hat shape.

So much seems to often times be brought into the mix that has nothing to do with anything. A thread gets started with a quick observation and a conclusion and everything from there on is the investigation that should have been conducted beforehand.

Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor (ŏk'əmz) pronunciation

A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

Bill Miller

Edited December 1, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

The best I could do with the LIFE Bond4;

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...d4hud-fence.png

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...cropatfence.png

Alan,

We need a Bond4 which at LEAST shows the detail and sharpness the Life magazine version shows, otherwise

this is going nowhere.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123...BondLifeMag.jpg

chris

[Alan Healy]

The best I could do with the LIFE Bond4;

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...d4hud-fence.png

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...cropatfence.png

Alan,

We need a Bond4 which at LEAST shows the detail and sharpness the Life magazine version shows, otherwise

this is going nowhere.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123...BondLifeMag.jpg

chris

Chris,

thanks for the feedback.

I can't get any more detail from that Bond4 in LIFE than I have shown above, at least not around the objects near the fence we want to see.

I thought it was an improvement on what we have seen so far.

I may be wrong but, that area I chose to zoom in on around the fence, is not as sharp as the overall print looks.

Anyway,'twas the best I could do at this present time.

If you could find a way to zoom in on that same area with your set-up, I'd like to see the results.

[Alan Healy]

The work that was done on the photo has produced a shape remarkably like a fedora style hat, no one concocted that, it's there, whether we like it or not.

Was it there before the work was done?

IMO? Unlikely but, I don't know for sure.

The image of the hat was there in the print. Groden told me years ago that the contrast of the print is created by the exposure of the copy negative. Robert says that there was nothing in that copy negative that wasn't in the original print that it was made from. The same would apply to Jack's Badge Man images. I.......

How many different points did you make it that wall of text? Twenty?

Haven't you already made your opinion clear?

I'll respond to one point anyway, the first.

"The hat shape was in the print"

If a print is over exposed(as is clearly the case with SSID) it can wash away detail & produce a shape different to that seen in the original photo.

You know this.

What you don't know is, how much detail was washed away around your "hat" man in M5.

Just looking at the SSID production should tell you at least some was.

Only by viewing a first class copy of an untouched print would you be able to find that out.

Gary has just made it clear that the SSID M5 is "terrible".

Why would you continue to defend it when you have not even seen the same area in the original print?

Why not get Robert to go on the record with his opinion since he has seen it & may be of some importance?

Edited December 1, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Miles Scull]

Why not get Robert to go on the record with his opinion since he has seen it & may be of some importance?

Some people have posted as if the Moorman photo shows the moment that JFK was shot, but thats a mistake made on their part. The limo rolled forward another 3 to 4 feet from the time of the head shot hitting its mark to the point of Moorman taking her photo. Put yourselves in Hat Man's position whether he be an observer or an actual shooter ... would you hang a banner over the fence to draw attention to yourself or would you stand just far enough back so to see the street while trying not to be recognized by any onlookers. I recall Royce, Tony and I standing at the Hat Man location and thinking how easy it would have been to have laid the barrel of a gun between the slats and merely pull the trigger when the President crossed the sights of the gun. Immediately one could easily pull the barrel back at the same time they started stepping back from the fence, which means all one would see is the top of their hat. I sometimes think that the Badge Man figure has influenced how people think shooters would have conducted themselves along the fence. The most obvious difference is that Badge Man had to elevate himself high enough to shoot over the concrete wall. Someone standing along the westward stretch of fence didn't have that problem, thus there was no need to elevate themselves high above the fence. The one thing Bowers didn't do was to give a height description of the men he testified about. That description may have been helpful, but at the same time a 5'6" man could look from Moorman's location just as tall as a man 6' tall by standing just slightly closer to the fence. Here is another observation not previously discussed. How to we know that part of the man's face isn't visible??? His body is seen in silhouette because of the sky seen behind him, so where do the fence slats stop and the man/or object begins ... no one can answer that question without another duplicate view being made on the day of the assassination. If you just fired a shot or was watching the shooting take place - how long would it take to tilt your head forward, thus using the hat to obscure a view of your face from the street. In fact, when I look at the hat shape - that is exactly how I interpret the hat shape.

Bill Miller

This photo shows the slats, but the Holland spot would be further down the fence to the west (to the right) in this photo.

QUOTE from post # 67: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9517&st=60

"...the slightest movement..."? If the barrel is resting between the slats, then it is resting on one slat to its left high up near the pointed apex of that (left) slat. The other point of contact the barrel has with a slat must be with a slat to its right high up near the pointed apex of that (right) slat. In other words, the barrel is wedged between to points, which points are NOT on a plane intersecting the barrel at a right angle, but which points are instead touching the barrel at loci at different lengths down the barrel from the the front sight. Thus, a movement of the barrel shot alignment down or up (or left or right) causes the stock to rise or lower, AND THE CONTACT POINTS TO MOVE, with the certain result that the expected adjustment is spoiled by the slippages. Any like slight movement brings like unexpected & unanticipated surprises which move the the shot to a miss point OR to a non-fatal point. This is what the professional sniper will seek to avoid like the plague. He does not gamble.

We are not talking about a quick moving left to right target here, but rather a target out in front of you that is getting closer, but not varying much off its line of travel. Say what you like, but I have stood in DP with a carcano and tried it myself.

Bill

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Mar 20 2007, 09:37 AM

Say what you like, but I have stood in DP with a carcano and tried it myself.

Bill

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Mar 20 2007, 09:37 AM

Are you saying that you placed the barrel of this type of rifle between the slats? Notice that you must have been resting the barrel on its left side at a point very near the front sight on the barrel. If so, then, any slightest movement of the stock would have (per force) thrown off the shot alignment big time. [by the way, are you suggesting that the Knoll assassin used this type of rifle? ]

Miller says:"I disagree... Anyone behind and/or in front of the limo had virtually a motionless target to hit IMO."

Again, to repeat, you miss the point. The point is simple. The movement of the limo as it actually did occur is irrelevant & immaterial to the question of how a sniper at hatman's locus would have handled his rifle. To repeat, the sniper did not know & could not have known in advance how the limo would move & how the target within the limo would move. Therefore, the sniper allows for & prepares for any & every possibility of movement. Resting the rifle barrel on anything (the fence) is a nonsense. More dogs not hunting.

This post has been edited by Miles Scull: Mar 31 2007, 02:05 AM

Edited for text redundancy.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Miles Scull

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Resting the rifle barrel on anything (the fence) is a nonsense. More dogs not hunting.

The "hatman" location is well within handgun range of the limo at Z312, so surely there is no reason to assume that an assassin at that location would have used a rifle.

[Craig Lamson]

The image of the hat was there in the print. Groden told me years ago that the contrast of the print is created by the exposure of the copy negative. Robert says that there was nothing in that copy negative that wasn't in the original print that it was made from. The same would apply to Jack's Badge Man images.

Bill there is a remarkable amount of misinformation in this quote of yours.

First can YOU explain why it is EXPOSURE that creates contrast? That flys directly in the face of accepted photographic theory.

Second your statment that there is nothing in the copy that was not in the original is also misinformation. The copy process adds NEW ARTIFACTS such as GRAIN and ALTERED EDGE LOCATIONS. This cannot be denied. The copy process also degrades the image detail, and this ALWAYS happens as the image passes through the copy camera taking lens, the enlarging lens, and on additional layer of film base. The printing process can also add new artifacts and edge locations to the print. Over exposing the paper will throw away highlight detail while underexposure will throw away shadow detail. Changing the paper contrat grade can do the same. Even the light source of the enlarger alters the final printed image. The very soft light produced by the Omega E3 enlarger was a favorite of portrait photographers because the softening of the printed images hid the pencil retouching marks made on the negatives. In contrast the Omega condenser enlargers offers a collimated light source that offered a much sharper print but also added film grain artifacts to the print.

You spend a lot of time telling everyone how wrong it is to use poor quality images...well it is just as wrong to offer poor quailty information.

[Bill Miller]

This photo shows the slats, but the Holland spot would be further down the fence to the west (to the right) in this photo.

I disagree. Just as the RTJ film showed - the distance west of the tree as seen in Moorman's photo looks different when seen from straight across the street. You should also know that the fence slats in the photo you are alluding to are not the same slats that were in place at the time of the assassination.

"...the slightest movement..."? If the barrel is resting between the slats, then it is resting on one slat to its left high up near the pointed apex of that (left) slat. The other point of contact the barrel has with a slat must be with a slat to its right high up near the pointed apex of that (right) slat. In other words, the barrel is wedged between to points, which points are NOT on a plane intersecting the barrel at a right angle, but which points are instead touching the barrel at loci at different lengths down the barrel from the the front sight. Thus, a movement of the barrel shot alignment down or up (or left or right) causes the stock to rise or lower, AND THE CONTACT POINTS TO MOVE, with the certain result that the expected adjustment is spoiled by the slippages. Any like slight movement brings like unexpected & unanticipated surprises which move the the shot to a miss point OR to a non-fatal point. This is what the professional sniper will seek to avoid like the plague. He does not gamble.

Why do I believe that you merely stated certain things as fact that are not fact at all. Just the other week on the 'History Cannel' was a man showing how he could flip an aspirin in the air and bust it using a 22 rifle. Laying the gun barrel between the slats and merely waiting for the target to pass in front of the sights is no great feat ... even though I doubt that the assassin chose to aim at the upper two inches of the President's head. In fact, resting the tip of a barrel in the "V" of two fence slats would make for a steadier aim. There would be no left to right tracking of the target, but instead an up or down LOS so to shoot for the head as it passes in front of the sights, which might explain why there was a 4/18ths of a second variance between the final two shots said to sound like a 'sonic-boom'.

Are you saying that you placed the barrel of this type of rifle between the slats? Notice that you must have been resting the barrel on its left side at a point very near the front sight on the barrel. If so, then, any slightest movement of the stock would have (per force) thrown off the shot alignment big time. [by the way, are you suggesting that the Knoll assassin used this type of rifle?

The Carcano just happened to be a rifle that was available at the time we were in the RR yard. It could have been any rifle as far as I was concerned. And about this force throwing off the shot alignment crap ... In some post you say things that make it appear that trained assassins wouldn't do certain things like oil the barrel of a gun before shooting it and then you say something like these boobs couldn't steady a rifle if they needed to - what is that nonsense about??? You are correct however when you touch on the idea that there is no such thing as the perfect shot when dealing with a moving target - wind factors - and ever changing advancement speeds. In other words, I believe that if one shot could have taken JFK's head off, then that's all that would have been fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. I certainly don't believe that assassins were trying to inflict non-fatal wounds on both JFK and Connally, thus those shots were obviously off a tad - maybe some of that slippage took place! (smile~)

Again, to repeat, you miss the point. The point is simple. The movement of the limo as it actually did occur is irrelevant & immaterial to the question of how a sniper at hatman's locus would have handled his rifle. To repeat, the sniper did not know & could not have known in advance how the limo would move & how the target within the limo would move. Therefore, the sniper allows for & prepares for any & every possibility of movement. Resting the rifle barrel on anything (the fence) is a nonsense. More dogs not hunting.

I am confused ... are these the snipers that are so highly trained so not to use ammo that produces clouds of smoke or snipers that were so far off the mark that they were sparking bullets off the asphalt, the curb stones, into Connally's arm pit, into JFK's adams apple, the chrome striping above the windshield, and so on ... how did those dogs hunt??? Again, it is my opinion that you are stating things as fact that are not fact according to the evidence.

Bill Miller

Edited December 2, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You spend a lot of time telling everyone how wrong it is to use poor quality images...well it is just as wrong to offer poor quailty information.

That information that I shared came from Robert Groden during some of our past discussions. Robert is the one who made a copy negative of Moorman's photo ... or at least one of them. I know that you do not agree with Robert or Jack when it comes to the accuracy of the Badge Man images, but maybe you would share a more common ground if you spoke to Robert yourself to ask the specifics pertaining to his work. The fact that Duncan seems to agree with you should cause some concern to you. Here is Groden's email ... write him as to any questions you may have for this would cut out the middle man. RobertG1@airmail.net

Bill

[Chris Davidson]

Dulles, corner of fence in July of 1964.

Of course, along with the Stemmons sign, maybe this fence was replaced between the time of the assassination and his visit.

chris

[Craig Lamson]

You spend a lot of time telling everyone how wrong it is to use poor quality images...well it is just as wrong to offer poor quailty information.

That information that I shared came from Robert Groden during some of our past discussions. Robert is the one who made a copy negative of Moorman's photo ... or at least one of them. I know that you do not agree with Robert or Jack when it comes to the accuracy of the Badge Man images, but maybe you would share a more common ground if you spoke to Robert yourself to ask the specifics pertaining to his work. The fact that Duncan seems to agree with you should cause some concern to you. Here is Groden's email ... write him as to any questions you may have for this would cut out the middle man. RobertG1@airmail.net

Bill

I really don't care what Groden did or did not do, the facts are the facts. His "work" cannot change the basics of photographic principal. If you want to quote Groden, fine. It would be in your best interest however to actually UNDERSTAND the material you are qouting. On this point it is quite clear you do not.

If you or Groden have problems with my statements, I can be contacted here.

[Miles Scull]

You spend a lot of time telling everyone how wrong it is to use poor quality images...well it is just as wrong to offer poor quailty information.

That information that I shared came from Robert Groden

Bill

I really don't care what Groden did or did not do, the facts are the facts. His "work" cannot change the basics of photographic principal. If you want to quote Groden, fine. It would be in your best interest however to actually UNDERSTAND the material you are qouting. On this point it is quite clear you do not.

If you or Groden have problems with my statements, I can be contacted here.

Miller said

"In fact, resting the tip of a barrel in the "V" of two fence slats would make for a steadier aim. There would be no left to right tracking of the target, but instead an up or down LOS so to shoot for the head as it passes in front of the sights,..."

But, then, the sniper could NOT SEE the approaching limo as it proceeded to the preposterously tiny () Target Window.

Why?

Because the picket fence slat tops to his left for 10 feet would block his view of the approaching limo.

Here are some explanatory photos:

Sniper's spot 15 feet from fence corner

Target Window

Sniper's view of approaching target is blocked by fence.

[Alan Healy]

Why would Groden use what Thompson had printed in SSID, instead if using a direct copy from his own print?

This is most unusual.

(Kept it big so you can have a close look)

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...n/TKOAPp173.png

You can also see that the insert(what Bill always refers to) shows even less detail than Groden's 2X4" reproduction in TKOAP (P. 173).

Thompson devoted a whole page to it in SSID btw.

Of course, Robert didn't credit Thompson or SSID in TKOAP, the credits say it's from AP/Worldwide but what we see on page 173 is copied direct from the pages of SSID, no doubt about it.

There are plenty of other places in Robert's book that show the full Moorman5 or part of it, so could it be that Robert thought that the SSID print showed "the possible shooter behind the fence" better than his own best print?

I hope not but it seems the most likely explaination.