If The Hat Don't Fit

[Alan Healy]

........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?

I've always had trouble believing what we see at the fence in M5 as "a hat" & have always tried to see if it could be interpreted differently but I only ever gave the M5 in SSID a cursorary look(I believed(mistakenly) that what you repeatedly posted was a good scan of it) & it has only just started to peak my interest enough to look closer.

What happens when I start questioning your source?

The usual.

Sure, it's always looked like a hat & the size of it is in the boundaries of what you would expect from that distance but as most people with experience in the world know, looks are sometimes decieving & as most all people who analyize photos(& especially those looking for "assassins") realize over time that, what you see in blow-ups of small sections of prints are most often an illusion.

I don't know if your referring to me exclusively but you did quote from my post, so let me make my motives clear again.

Apart from BDM, which is the most suspicious character in the photographical record IMO, what we are seeing at the fence in M5 could be the best evidence we have of an assassin in the films & photos.

I'm not saying there is nothing there at all, far from it, I just simply think that the hat shape is misleading, it could easily be a man's left shoulder.

As far as logic goes, your theory about it being a shooter who stepped back from the fence too fast to see the effects of his own bullet on the target doesn't work for me.

I'm convinced now it's not a hat anyway, the man has both his shoulders above the fenceline IMO.

Thompson, Mack & even Groden himself have said the same thing, they all refer to it as a possible shooter, not a man hiding or a hat.

Looks can be decieving, don't dig yourself into a theory you have no escape from.

The most logical deduction(from a CT's POV) is that we are looking at an assassin in the process of doing his "job", thus the "hat" interepretation is incorrect.

"Hatman" has not had time to see if he hit the target, the real figure is still in the sniper's position.

IMO obviously.

It's not foilage alone, there is something else there but if the best we have is the SSID print, then it's unlikely we will notice something that Gary & Jack could not see in blow-ups of the best print they had access to.

As Gary said, he/they could not figure out exactly what it was they were seeing & neither will you if you don't look beyond "the hat".

[Miles Scull]

'Bill Miller' [/b]post='129265' date='Dec 1 2007, 08:23 PM']........What puzzles me is what motive could someone have for not seeing the obvious.

This puzzles me also.

Indeed, what motive could someone have for not seeing the obvious?

QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Mar 18 2007, 02:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

QUOTE

Bill, a sniper or a hunter never rests his barrel on anything if his target is moving. (If the target is stationary or has very little movement, then such supporting of the barrel becomes a possibility.) Placing the barrel between the fence slats guarantees a miss. Why? Because a stationary rifle limits the field of fire to a single point. Also, the slats would obscure sight & sighting of the approaching target making anticipation & timing virtually impossible. The option would be that the shooter would have to shuttle his body from right to left to swing the rifle in a rotation on the fulcrum point of the fence. Again never done.

Miles

Miles,

I can only go by what I have done with a gun and understand concerning the evidence of this case. It isn't like a sniper positioned at the Hat Man location would be needing to swing his gun from side to side so to follow a target such as a quail flying across his field of view. Instead, a slow moving car out in front of you and traveling at a slight angle away from you is virtually stationary for the most part. Let us keep in mind that the view Zapruder had was not the look that the Hat Man was seeing at the time of the kill shot. I also know that an opening in the crowd or between trees and/or foliage can be sought out before hand and one only needs to allow the target to pass through the chosen opening to fire a shot off.

Bill

Bill,

These are your exact words:

QUOTE

"..I would have then rested my gun barrel between the fence slats so to get a steady shot off."

Take a look at these photos of the picket fence:

Picket Fence

As you can see, by placing the barrel of a rifle "between the fence slats", you effectively restrict the field of fire to a single point. The slat(s) to the left of the barrel will block any visual sight of the target as it moves, however slowly, from left to right (unless you are, absurdly, moving your body from right to left to travel the stock ). This means that an accurate sighting of the target, through the rifle sights or through a scope, would require a shooter to adjust for correct alignment up & down in a fraction of a second. Remember a sniper or a hunter always employs a steady, continuous finger squeeze on the trigger to insure an accurate hit. No jerks.

Thus, a placing of the barrel between the slats severely limits a shooter & renders the probability of a fatal hit to nearly zero. Remember a shooter would not know in advance the rate of travel of the limo; the limo could speed up or slow down unpredictably, which in fact it actually did do. A sniper or a hunter would know all of this from training & experience & would never for a second consider such a self-defeating & counter-intuitive nonsense. In other words, a sniper would want to hit his target, not miss it; he, consequently, maximizes his chances & does not deliberately minimize them.

Miles

This post has been edited by Miles Scull: Mar 18 2007, 03:00 PM

[Bill Miller]

Me agreeing with Craig is only common sense. What Craig says is not difficult to understand, and i'm surprised someone with your self proclaimed expertise could actually believe Groden's basic mistakes, especially the contrast issue...wow..that's a howler if ever I saw one, I haven't laughed so much for a long time, since I seen your swinging Tarzan assassin in fact

Duncan

Only the uniformed would say that I have self-proclaimed expertise ... show one post where I have ever said this. What I do is go to those available experts to have them tell me their opinions and I pass it on to the forum. I anxiously await to see the name of the thread and post number that supports your accusation.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Me agreeing with Craig is only common sense. What Craig says is not difficult to understand, and i'm surprised someone with your self proclaimed expertise could actually believe Groden's basic mistakes, especially the contrast issue...wow..that's a howler if ever I saw one, I haven't laughed so much for a long time, since I seen your swinging Tarzan assassin in fact

Duncan

Only the uniformed would say that I have self-proclaimed expertise ... show one post where I have ever said this. What I do is go to those available experts to have them tell me their opinions and I pass it on to the forum. I anxiously await to see the name of the thread and post number that supports your accusation.

Bill Miller

Should you check authorities on sniping technique?

See post # 331 & # 328 above.

[Bill Miller]

Thus, a placing of the barrel between the slats severely limits a shooter & renders the probability of a fatal hit to nearly zero. Remember a shooter would not know in advance the rate of travel of the limo; the limo could speed up or slow down unpredictably, which in fact it actually did do. A sniper or a hunter would know all of this from training & experience & would never for a second consider such a self-defeating & counter-intuitive nonsense. In other words, a sniper would want to hit his target, not miss it; he, consequently, maximizes his chances & does not deliberately minimize them.

Miles, I don't know what hunting you have done ... I assume stationary or slow moving game. But I have, as well as others with me fired a gun many times by using the "V" of a tree trunk and thats just what I would have done at the fence. The smallest fraction of an inch of adjustment at the fence can be multiple feet when shooting at a target up Elm street. Like I said before ... I would have picked a location where no one was between me and my expected target and merely waited for him to cross my sights - but then again I have never hunted with assassins who would spark a bullet off the asphalt when shooting at a 20 feet long limo, nor would they be such bad aims as to be shooting people in the armpits and adams apple.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

What experts and in what fields?

Duncan

Did we both not mention Groden's name in discussing a photographic issue. So much for saving bandwidth!

[Miles Scull]

What experts and in what fields?

Duncan

Did we both not mention Groden's name in discussing a photographic issue. So much for saving bandwidth!

QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Mar 19 2007, 04:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

QUOTE

As you can see, by placing the barrel of a rifle "between the fence slats", you effectively restrict the field of fire to a single point. The slat(s) to the left of the barrel will block any visual sight of the target as it moves, however slowly, from left to right (unless you are, absurdly, moving your body from right to left to travel the stock ). This means that an accurate sighting of the target, through the rifle sights or through a scope, would require a shooter to adjust for correct alignment up & down in a fraction of a second. Remember a sniper or a hunter always employs a steady, continuous finger squeeze on the trigger to insure an accurate hit. No jerks.

Thus, a placing of the barrel between the slats severely limits a shooter & renders the probability of a fatal hit to nearly zero. Remember a shooter would not know in advance the rate of travel of the limo; the limo could speed up or slow down unpredictably, which in fact it actually did do. A sniper or a hunter would know all of this from training & experience & would never for a second consider such a self-defeating & counter-intuitive nonsense. In other words, a sniper would want to hit his target, not miss it; he, consequently, maximizes his chances & does not deliberately minimize them.

I do not know how the shot was fired, but I stand behind the possibility that with the limo coming down the street and the shooter out in front and to the side that the shot merely needed a bit of timing so to have pulled it off. I have shot at many moving targets by picking a point out ahead of them and waiting for the target to pass a certain point before pulling the trigger. At the time of the kill shot - the limo was moving under 5 mph which is virtually motionless at that angle. I also doubt that the shooter was aiming for the very top of JFK's head because had the bullet have been aimed 2" higher - history may have been recorded differently. The bone plate came off the very top of the head. Shots were not hitting their mark during the assassination unless we are to believe that someone shot JFK in the neck on purpose or had meant to shoot Connally in the armpit for some odd reason. Because of such a botched investigation - we will never know the truth. For me the closest thing to the truth lies with the witnesses who were there.

Bill

I do not know how the shot was fired, but I stand behind the possibility that with the limo coming down the street and the shooter out in front and to the side that the shot merely needed a bit of timing so to have pulled it off.

Well, yes, any shot needs a bit of timing. By fixing a rifle to fire to a predetermined point, which resting its barrel between the slats of the fence necessarily does do, the shooter is gambling that the target will arrive at that predetermined point (and all that is necessary is to "time" the trigger pull). Since the exact movement of the target cannot be predicted with accuracy, this type of shot has a one in a million chance of success.

I have shot at many moving targets by picking a point out ahead of them and waiting for the target to pass a certain point before pulling the trigger.

To repeat, resting the barrel between the slats reduces the rifle to immobility & the shot to a single point. The gamble that the target will come to that point is a recipe for failure. There will not be time for a second shot. Obviously, the correct & standard method should be that of holding the rifle free to move to follow the target in real time while continuously sighting. This method will render the highest probability for success. Obstructing the rifle movement with slats will end in failure & the lowest probability for success.

At the time of the kill shot - the limo was moving under 5 mph which is virtually motionless at that angle.

Even if the limo is moving at 1 mph, the "barrel between the slats" method is still grossly inferior to the standard method.

I also doubt that the shooter was aiming for the very top of JFK's head because had the bullet have been aimed 2" higher - history may have been recorded differently. The bone plate came off the very top of the head. Shots were not hitting their mark during the assassination unless we are to believe that someone shot JFK in the neck on purpose or had meant to shoot Connally in the armpit for some odd reason. Because of such a botched investigation - we will never know the truth. For me the closest thing to the truth lies with the witnesses who were there.

Well, but of course we are forgetting one very important witness who was indubitably there, are we not? In fact, of all the witnesses, he was the one witness who had the truest & most revealing view. Oh, yes: THE GRASSY KNOLL ASSASSIN! His aim was unerring & precisely on target, owing to his immaculate technique!.

(Bill, I'm afraid you get Maggie's drawers on this one. )

[Bill Miller]

As you can see, by placing the barrel of a rifle "between the fence slats", you effectively restrict the field of fire to a single point.

Miles,

I have not heard you mention that you have even tried to take a rifle up on the knoll and aim it at Elm Street. Instead, as usual, you produce a photo and then try and tell me what an assassin would do as if you would know. I stood on the knoll with a rifle and actually did what I have stated and all I can do is tell you what it was like. This is just liker with the Bowers LOS ... you tell us what you think it should be, but had never bothered to test it yourself. The difference between us is I have and can invite anyone to do what I did and see it for themselves.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Did we both not mention Groden's name in discussing a photographic issue. So much for saving bandwidth!

My question was " What experts and in what fields? " You failed to answer. If Groden truly gave you the information which you posted on this forum, and which was justifiably torn to shreads by Craig for it's ridiculous misinformation, then he is no expert in the photographic field other than having lots of photographs to look at and expressing opinions about them, like for example using his "expertise" to portray Emmett Hudson as a shooter with a rifle in TKOAP. I'm still laughing at the contrast issue and I can't believe that a man with his experience would actually have said that. As for the bandwidth issue, I answered your question in the relevant thread, and the correctness of my reply was verified as correct by Andy

Duncan

Miles,

I have not heard you mention that you have even tried to take a rifle up on the knoll and aim it at Elm Street. Instead, as usual, you produce a photo and then try and tell me what an assassin would do as if you would know. I stood on the knoll with a rifle and actually did what I have stated and all I can do is tell you what it was like. This is just liker with the Bowers LOS ... you tell us what you think it should be, but had never bothered to test it yourself. The difference between us is I have and can invite anyone to do what I did and see it for themselves.

Bill Miller

Miles,

I have not heard you mention that you have even tried to take a rifle up on the knoll and aim it at Elm Street.

To avoid arrest for attempted homicide of tourists, I guess you try this at night? Don't tell me you snuck down at 2 AM?

Instead, as usual, you produce a photo and then try and tell me what an assassin would do as if you would know.

It's just common sense. If you cannot see the target approach down Elm, then how do you know when your 1/2 second long fire window will arrive & depart? -

I stood on the knoll with a rifle and actually did what I have stated and all I can do is tell you what it was like.

Are you actually saying that by you personally putting a Carcano barrel between the slats, that that makes it reasonable that a sniper would have acted so on Nov. 22, 1963?

This is just liker with the Bowers LOS ... you tell us what you think it should be, but had never bothered to test it yourself.

Again, is it your position that by you personally placing a barrel between the slats that you thus establish a valid proof on the basis of that personal act by you, because without that personal barrel placement no other proof is possible?

The difference between us is I have and can invite anyone to do what I did and see it for themselves.

I don't understand. Why could I not invite someone (Duncan?) to do what you did?

Plus, what if the invitee tries this & discovers that it is complete nonsense?

Maybe Groden could take snap of someone trying this? That would settle it.

Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Could someone check "High Treason" for me to see if Groden published a blow-up of the fence from Moorman5 around "the hat"?

I'd appreciate a description of it if he did.

I'm just having another look through TKOAP & the M5 that Robert used shows less detail than the Drumscan.

P204 "Uniform Man"(Badgeman) shows three crops from M5.

The first two are obviously from the same grainy print but then he has a highly detailed blow-up of Badgeman that cannot possibly come from the same source, it's clearly one of Jack White's but Jack is not credited for it.

So why was Groden using other people's blow-ups of M5 in '93 if he had a great copy of his own?

The poor copy he displayed for the wide shots could not possibly contain enough information to show Badgeman or "Hatman".

I know Robert claims to have lost a lot of his collection but that was years after TKOAP was published, correct?

[Alan Healy]

P167 got it. Thanks Duncan!

[Bill Miller]

Did we both not mention Groden's name in discussing a photographic issue. So much for saving bandwidth!

My question was " What experts and in what fields? " You failed to answer. If Groden truly gave you the information which you posted on this forum, and which was justifiably torn to shreads by Craig for it's ridiculous misinformation, then he is no expert in the photographic field other than having lots of photographs to look at and expressing opinions about them, like for example using his "expertise" to portray Emmett Hudson as a shooter with a rifle in TKOAP. I'm still laughing at the contrast issue and I can't believe that a man with his experience would actually have said that. As for the bandwidth issue, I answered your question in the relevant thread, and the correctness of my reply was verified as correct by Andy

Duncan

Duncan, so we have no confusion here .... Groden is the one who created at least one of the copy negatives in question, thus I feel that he knows more about what he did than you or Craig. While I like Craig and I agree on a lot of things that he says because he is a photographer by trade - his opinions are not supported by everyone any more than Groden's are. Groden, Gary Mack, Thompson, Weisberg, and a list of others are all people who either saw the original an/or who had access to those best early Moorman prints and I have had the good fortune to speak with each and every one of them. It's pointless to argue with someone like yourself who knows no better than to blame your alleged missing shooter's body on a 'washout' as you called it when you had not bothered to ever see or inquire as to what the good prints showed the facts to be.

I read to Groden what Craig had said and Robert pointed out a few things that only he would know. Robert totally disagrees with Craig on how the Exposure of the negative when making a copy print can effect the contrast of the print. I remember myself in school doing exposures in photography class and how I saw this effect first hand. The artifacts and such are a moot point because they don't effect the Hat Man shape in the least. As far as the reshaping of the Hat Man shape ... someone mentioned the fence slats. Look at the Dulles photo of the fence and if the slats in the Hat Man image shows the same shaping, then Hat Man will be accurate as well. One cannot have it both ways. And to be honest, I have only seen contrast erase the edging of an image - not create it out of nothing.

As far as what Andy said ... he didn't disagree with me - he merely acknowledged what you said about bandwidth. The point I made could be viewed the same as adding weight to a boat ... it matters not where you place the weight (the front or back) the load on the boat is still the same. You had mentioned my placing my post in another thread as if to imply that it would somehow effect the bandwidth and I said that was nonsense because the bandwidth for the forum is measured as a whole and not by any particular post in any particular thread. In other words I can post a large photo in any thread of choice and it will effect the total bandwidth usage no matter where its posted. If you think that is not what I implied, then I advise you read it again, but more carefully the next time.

Bill

Edited December 4, 2007 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

[...]

Duncan, so we have no confusion here .... Groden is

[...]

Bill

oh my..... "no confusion", where have I seen that before!

[Miles Scull]

Duncan, so we have no confusion here .... Groden is the one who created at least one of the copy negatives in question, thus I feel that he knows more about what he did than you or Craig.

Of course he knows more about what he did than me or Craig do, that doesn't mean that because he knows what he did better than me or Craig, that his relayed via you stated analysis of what he did is correct, as was pointed out correctly by Craig as misinformation.

It's pointless to argue with someone like yourself who knows no better than to blame your alleged missing shooter's body on a 'washout' as you called it when you had not bothered to ever see or inquire as to what the good prints showed the facts to be.

I believe others have used the term washout in certain areas of Moorman, including Gary Mack. You say you can see hatman in Willis without any washout, so who's the one withe defective eyesight? . Oh....How's Jane and Cheetah?

Duncan

Duncan,

Comparing Shorty with Duncman there appears to be faults with each: Shorty is shooting into the fence & Duncman has a washout issue.

Of the two faults which, in your judgement, is causative of a failure of the reality test?

Shooting wood seems serious.

Washout? What's the harm there?

Edited December 4, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

oh my..... "no confusion", where have I seen that before!

You may have seen it in "The Great Zapruder Hoax" book where Jack said that Altgens #6, which shows Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the grass, was genuine in one place and then claimed the same two women were in the street in another. Or maybe it was when you posted in the same thread in one place that you have not seen proof of Zapruder film alteration in one post and yet in another you said you believe the Zapruder film to be altered. Yes ... definitely confusion going on there.