If The Hat Don't Fit

[Bill Miller]

That's a pretty lame response Bill. If you have the slides, then why not share the area in question from those slides to back up your claim? As it stands, I and the rest of the readers only have your word that you have the slides. Having the slides in your possession means zilch unless you can provide the evidence to this forum from those slides to support your counter claim. At this point in time, I have laid out my case for Hatman in Moorman 5, Bond 4 and Bond 5. You have laid out no photographic evidence to counter claim the non existance of Hatman in Bond4 and Bond 5 and unless you do, your words are unreliable and no basis for convincing anyone that you are correct.

Duncan

Well Duncan, only days ago I buried my father who lived in Illinois and I just so happened to be getting some of my JFK stuff from he and his wifes garage and I had those slides in one of the boxes. I don't have access to a scanner at the moment. In fact, I have been using a borrowed laptop just to see the forum. However, I surely must not be the only researcher who has bought 1st generation slides of Bond's images, so maybe one of them can try posting a high resolution scan of the same. What I fear might happen though is that clarity might be lost as with most computer generated images. The best way to view them is under raw high magnification IMO. What I posted was for your own information. As usual you have taken a poor fuzzy image and have made a claim about something that just isn't there in a better print. Like I said before - I wish in many ways you were right on this one, but you are once again making the same old mistakes that you have always made and thats why in 45 years you are the only one making this claim.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Bill

A mistake is not a mistake unless it is proven to be a mistake. When you or someone else can post the counter claim evidence, then I can reconsider everything. Until then we have a stalemate.

Duncan

What ever you say, Duncan. Like I said - you're the King when it comes to being able to see things in some of the worst images possible. This ranks right up there with 'The Tripod Man' - 'The drunken AOL Man' - 'The crouching man at the pedestal' and 'The assassin atop of the colonnade'.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Bill

A mistake is not a mistake unless it is proven to be a mistake. When you or someone else can post the counter claim evidence, then I can reconsider everything. Until then we have a stalemate.

Duncan

What ever you say, Duncan.

Can anyone, please, estimate a time elapse from Z-313 for Bond 4 ? Thx

[Bill Miller]

Can we add your Super Powered Flyng Arnold Minime and Swinging Tarzan Apeman Shooter to that list? You appear to have a "thing" for flying assassins and witnesses

Duncan

I wasn't aware of any flying assassins or ape men that I have ever come up with, but I still wish I was on what ever you're taking ... its gotta be strong stuff!

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I wasn't aware of any flying assassins or ape men that I have ever come up with, but I still wish I was on what ever you're taking ... its gotta be strong stuff!

Bill

As I said : The conclusive evidence lies in the peaks 1 and 2 , and the trough 3 of the "Hat"

Duncan

Duncan, I know that perspective is not something you understand well, but it is impossible for you to see the same points seen in Moorman's photo when looking uphill as you would from the higher elevation Bond had. The foliage seen in Moorman will fall down to the fence level in Bond and does. You have taken some very weak blurry foliage and while not considering any of the perspective changes that have taken place and merely said that you see a hat. For some reason you think that you have the same view and spacing from two different camera locations and it just simply cannot be done. I would think that from enough times that your approach has been shown to be flawed that you would have learned better. But don't let me stop your fun ... some of us in Dallas this fall will need something to keep us laughing and you certainly provide enough material.

[Miles Scull]

Bill

A mistake is not a mistake unless it is proven to be a mistake. When you or someone else can post the counter claim evidence, then I can reconsider everything. Until then we have a stalemate.

Duncan

What ever you say, Duncan.

Can anyone, please, estimate a time elapse from Z-313 for Bond 4 ? Thx

Miles,

Bringing this up so it can be seen.

Thx Kathy,

Duncan,

The hat trough.

The depressed indention?

This is not a hat.

[Bill Miller]

Whatever it is Miles, it's the same object that is seen in Bond 4 and Bond 8, even although Bill says it's foliage, which is of course nonsense. If it is a hat, it could of course be tilted, which would explain the differing peak heights very easily.

I only use the terms "Hat" and "Hatman" as a reference.

Duncan

It wouldn't matter if what looks like a fedora hat shape was a humpback camel ... Thompson investigated it and found by going to Moorman's site and looking at the same scene that what ever it was obviously was not part of the RR yard, thus it had the ability to move or be moved from that location, unlike any of the fixed objects. With Moorman's upward angled view - it is obvious that it was up near the fence or else it was further back in the RR yard and extremely tall. So what would common sense tell us about the possibilities as to what it might have been???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Duncan[/b]

The proof is in the peaks 1and 2 and trough 3 of the "Hat"

Duncan, I will say this one last time and hopefully you will understand what has happened. Bond was at a steeper (left to right) angle to the area in question than Moorman. The little tree to our left of the Hudson tree is gone in Bond. If you look at the little cluster of foliage just to the top and slight left of the hat shape in Moorman - imagine lowering it down to the fence and that is what you are thinking is Hat Man and the other cluster of foliage just to our right of it in Moorman is also what you see to the right of the cluster we are talking about. Those clusters are more prevalent in at least one or two of the other Bond slides. What you are seeing is those foliage clusters except because of Bond's higher elevation they appear lower to the fence. That principle applied to how Holland was unable to see under the tree foliage from where he stood when Moorman could. So what I am saying for the last time is that the foliage is lower to the fence in Bond because of the higher elevated LOS and Bond is seeing the clusters at a slight different angle than Moorman did.

Try this ... go look at the space seen above the fence in Moorman's photo between the Hudson tree and the corner of the fence. What you should find is maybe two or three places where the tip of the overhanging tree foliage reaches the top of the fence. Now go to the Bond images and see what happens. What happens is that the dense areas above the tips I mentioned in Moorman's photo are now pushed down to the fence and the narrow tips seen before in Moorman would be even lower than the fence top.

Wide foliage seen above the fence and narrow tips touch the fence

Wide foliage that was above the fence in Moorman is now pushed down to the fence in Bond's field of view

That's all I am going to say about it.

Bill

Edited November 2, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Well Bill, you have not told me anything which I did not know already. I think the old saying " You can't see the woods for the trees" is appropriate in your case. You seem obsessed with describing anything which you don't understand or can't fathom as foliage or sunspots.

Duncan, I was only describing what I can see through clear images under high magnification Vs. you looking at blurred images in a multi-generational print. I'll leave you to believe what ever you like as you have done in the past. But if you tried to go to a conference and sell that nonsense - the audience would probably turn on you like they would a lousy vaudeville act. Of course if you like the taste of rotten tomato's - it could be a good thing!

Edited November 2, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

bond8 Large.

click on the image for full size:

Edited November 3, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Bill Miller]

bond8 Large.

click on the image for full size:

Thank's Robin ... that is just one of the images that Duncan claimed to see Hat Man in ... the only place that Hat Man would be if he had not moved is where I see two tree branches that are forking downward with daylight being seen between the fork. The other foliage seen is just broad thick dark spots.

Now maybe Duncan can point out the two points of the hat in this enlargement ... or does he now want to admit that reading such a poor blurry image is just not reliable as he thought?

Bill

Edited November 3, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

Thank's Robin ... that is just one of the images that Duncan claimed to see Hat Man in ... the only place that Hat Man would be if he had not moved is where I see two tree branches that are forking downward with daylight being seen between the fork. The other foliage seen is just broad thick dark spots.

Now maybe Duncan can point out the two points of the hat in this enlargement ... or does he now want to admit that reading such a poor blurry image is just not reliable as he thought?

Bill

Are you saying that the Image which Robin just posted above is good enough for analysis purposes?

As for the rest, I have stated my case

Duncan

Hi Duncan.

I'm not sure the image i posted is good enough for analysis purposes.

We really need a clearer image, but i'm not holding my breath.

I would like to get my hands on better Bond and Towner images.

The Towner 3 image available just isn't as good as it should be, when refferencing a couple of crops that i have seen showing the coke bottle and fence area, they appear to be much sharper and clearer than the full uncropped image currently available.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Bond black & white.

[Bill Miller]

Hi Robin, The only reason I am asking Bill the question is that he is contradicting himself to suit his counter claim. On the one hand, in the same post, he states that the image is not good enough, and on the other hand, in the same post he is beyond doubt declaring that it is good enough for his counter claim by saying, and I qoute him

"the only place that Hat Man would be if he had not moved is where I see two tree branches that are forking downward with daylight being seen between the fork. The other foliage seen is just broad thick dark spots"

Duncan

Duncan, let me see if I can make this simple enough for even you to follow ........

You posted a obvious low-res scan of Bond and claimed that you could see Hat Man at a said location. I view my 1st generation slide of the same and see nothing there. Robin then post an enlargement of Bond 8 and while not quite as sharp as lets say a good first generation print - his image is still good enough and large enough to see that where you said you saw Hat Man ... there is nothing but a branch with a few leaves attached to it forking downward. So I am not contradicting a damned thing - just observing what I already knew by using Robin's enlargement to make my point.

Now I ask you once again - do you not see the forked branch in Robin's enlargement or do you still want to go back to your smaller image and call it "Hat Man"? After all, you are the one who said you wanted proof to the contrary and Robin has given it to you IMO and I am just the guy who couldn't see the forest for the trees. (smile~)

Bill

Edited November 3, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Duncan, let me see if I can make this simple enough for even you to follow ........

Ah..back to insults...a clear sign of a person in retreat

I don't think that I could insult you any more than the ridiculous claims that you make have already done. The 'drunken AOL man' was a hoot.

You posted a obvious low-res scan of Bond and claimed that you could see Hat Man at a said location. I view my 1st generation slide of the same and see nothing there.

Well you are a member of the Magoo society, so i'd expect nothing less. How's Waldo?.

I think Waldo is still trying to strain his eyes on the small Bond image you posted. Now you said that Hat Man was still there in the other Bond photos - please go to Robins large scan and show us the two points of the hat (this ought to be good!)

The image Robin posted is the image I used in conjunction with Bond 4, which in your words above is good enough for your conclusion, yet at the same time not good enough for my conclusion...huh!?

You posted a small version of that photo that didn't allow nearly the detail Robin's larger version offered and you don't see why his is better ... maybe that's part of your problem in not understanding how to approach working with these assassination images.

there is nothing but a branch with a few leaves attached to it forking downward. So I am not contradicting a damned thing - just observing what I already knew by using Robin's enlargement to make my point.

That's your opinion, no one else's

And how did you reach that conclusion. I've gotten several emails and PM's saying that they cannot see anything in the image you posted. Have you taken on the 'Miles Scull school of thought' that if people don't respond to your fuzzy observations that this must mean they all agree - surely you don't accept that irrational reasoning.

Now I ask you once again - do you not see the forked branch in Robin's enlargement

The discussion is not about me being able to see forked branches or birds flying past or whatever, it's about me seeing and identifying the hatman shape, which I have did to my satisfaction.

So you are doing what I have always said ... you take as blurry as an image that you can find and lay claims about it and no matter how much better the image is that Robin posted - you prefer to resort back to your smaller unreadable image. This is what I will challenge you to do - use Robin's image and point where you see the two points of the hat that you see in Moorman.

Below is one example of how you identify things to your satisfaction. Most everyone knows what the Black Dog Man (BDM) figure is as seen in Betzner's photograph. Below is what you did to that shape to come up with something to your satisfaction. What was once the BDM is the dark area on our left.

I had it already, but your viewing skills , or rather lack of viewing skills failed to identify that fact.

Well now you have a much larger print which is obviously a higher resolution scan for the fork of the branches are visible in Robin's scan, so again ... feel free to point out the points on Hat Man's hat for us less than eagle-eyed researchers.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Bill Miller