Miles Scull Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 You are not picking up Miles dirty tricks - are you? Stupid pet tricks? Bill Obviously, Hatman could not see over the fence, let alone shoot over the fence. Think carefully here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) Obviously, Hatman could not see over the fence, let alone shoot over the fence. Think carefully here:[/color][/b] Miles, You are either just trying to be a screw around (which is what most people - including myself have come to believe) or you are so far out of your league when it comes to understanding these images that you don't bother to show views that would match the one in question. The photo you used is obviously taken from a straight on view at the same elevation as the top of the fence. As has been said numerous times without it obviously sinking in is that Moorman was looking uphill, thus anyone stepping back from the fence or shifting away from the fence in those 4/18s of a second would sink over the the top of the fence from Moorman's LOS. Do you want people to think that the Franzen clip not teach you anything. That same uphill view caused a tree-top seen just over the wall near the shelter in Moorman's photo to look like it does and that was a very tall tree back in the RR yard. Your trying to portray a hat seen at eye level with the top of the fence Vs. the same from an uphill view as being the person being the same height is ridiculous. Bill Miller Edited November 9, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I've told you before that I didn't use Alan's Bond 8, I don't know why you persist that I did. Bond #8 is Bond #8 whether in color or B&W. You boxed in the area in question in your initial post and it is the same location Alan mentioned and discussed in his post. That tree fork is visible in your Bond #4 enlargement. If you don't agree with that, then point out the downward forked branches in that same enlarged image. Thanks, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 My post is about the location of the hat, not any incidental branches.. If you wish to branch hunt, feel free to pont them out.Duncan I know - I saw that in your very first post when you placed a box over the branches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 My post is about the location of the hat, not any incidental branches.. If you wish to branch hunt, feel free to pont them out.Duncan I know - I saw that in your very first post when you placed a box over the branches. I believe that you missed something important. The image of Shorty in Moorman is NOT the image to consider when judging if Shorty could have shot over the fence. Shorty had to shoot through the fence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) I believe that you missed something important. The image of Shorty in Moorman is NOT the image to consider when judging if Shorty could have shot over the fence. Shorty had to shoot through the fence! And Miles, I think you are purposely missing something that has been explained numerous times to you in the most plain English that I know and that is Moorman's photo was exposed 4/18s of a second AFTER the fatal shot and Hat Man (who you ignorantly refer to as 'Shorty' because you have no grasp at understanding perspective) has had time to move back enough to cause his hat to sink down over the fence in Moorman's field of view. While looking uphill. During that time the limo as rolled about 3 to 4 feet west of the kill shot location before Mary took that photo. Bill Miller Edited November 9, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 What branches? You are still failing misreably to identify them. So far you have not pointed out even the smallest twigDuncan Duncan, as you have already claimed to be aware ... I have no software on this borrowed laptop to point things out to you. But Alan, who said the same thing a I did may be able to point the two branches out to you and then you will have to find some other way to deny your mistake. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I believe that you missed something important. The image of Shorty in Moorman is NOT the image to consider when judging if Shorty could have shot over the fence. Shorty had to shoot through the fence! And Miles, I think you are purposely missing something that has been explained numerous times to you in the most plain English that I know and that is Moorman's photo was exposed 4/18s of a second AFTER the fatal shot and Hat Man (who you ignorantly refer to as 'Shorty' because you have no grasp at understanding perspective) has had time to move back enough to cause his hat to sink down over the fence in Moorman's field of view. While looking uphill. During that time the limo as rolled about 3 to 4 feet west of the kill shot location before Mary took that photo. Bill Miller Right, Shorty would have shot the fence, just as I said. BTW, what about that bogus forum moderator you made up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Right, Shorty would have shot the fence, just as I said. BTW, what about that bogus forum moderator you made up? You help my position about your inability to understand perspective with each stupid response you make about 'Shorty'. For that I owe you a big thanks! As far as the moderator/forum member - ask Ken ... he saw the who response and probably agrees with it as most people here do.. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) X Edited November 13, 2007 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Yes, I appreciate that you can not point out things visually at the moment, but if you continue to attack my claim, I feel I must defend it when you call in defenders of your opinion in this matter like Alan. I'm sure you appreciate that, and i'm sure you would do the same.Duncan Maybe Alan and I don't our hair in our eyes which allows us to see with more clarity. And Alan isn't afraid to disagree with me or I him, so when we both see something - its because we really do and has nothing to do with ganging up on anyone. But in all fairness to you - I have slides of these images and can view them under high magnification so I already know what is there when I look at the images posted to the forum. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 If the "hat" or "Hatman" stayed in the same spot then this is where I think he would be, http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...man/Bondhat.jpg hidden by the foilage. "A" is hidden behind the tree trunk also I feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 It is now Alan, but it wasn't when I made my reply to your original arrowed area. Yes, it was, it's the same thing Duncan, light through branches & you are pointing to two different items in Bonds 4 & 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) It is now Alan, but it wasn't when I made my reply to your original arrowed area. Yes, it was, it's the same thing Duncan, light through branches & you are pointing to two different items in Bonds 4 & 8. Alan, you are wasting your time. Duncan is a nice enough fellow, but he has never been good at understanding perspective IMO. He just doesn't see how in the steeper angled Bond photo that the foliage is turned and stacked together differently. If you go to the very first post in this thread - Duncan boxed in the forked branch - he nailed it dead center. Only after he sees that he has made an error - he shifts to the next location east and tells us that's where he was talking about all along. Just figure that as long as others see it - it doesn't matter if Duncan does. Bill Edited November 9, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 It is now Alan, but it wasn't when I made my reply to your original arrowed area. Yes, it was, it's the same thing Duncan, light through branches & you are pointing to two different items in Bonds 4 & 8. Alan, you are wasting your time. Duncan is a nice enough fellow, but he has never been good at understanding perspective IMO. He just doesn't see how in the steeper angled Bond photo that the foliage is turned and stacked together differently. If you go to the very first post in this thread - Duncan boxed in the forked branch - he nailed it dead center. Only after he sees that he has made an error - he shifts to the next location east and tells us that's where he was talking about all along. Just figure that as long as others seeit - it doesn't matter if Duncan does. Bill Alan, Shorty was a nice enough fellow, BUT: Shorty's eye level is below the top of the fence. He cannot see the limo. Do you agree, Alan? 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