Zfilm Revisited

[Miles Scull]

I would like to see Bill's documentation for his "belief".

Jack

Miles,

Could you explain to me just why the motorcycle backfiring would have to be 50 feet above the man laying on the ground?

Sure thing, Mike. I'll address your question. But first a little preliminary data is necessary in order to make my answer clear. BM (Bill Miller) described how he would have effected a sniper shot from Hatman's position behind the picket fence. The problem is that since Hatman's hat is seen in Moorman's photo just barely above the top of the fence, then how can Hatman fire a rifle just then (the fatal head shot)? This is what BM said:

(Bill Miller @ Mar 16 2007, 04:37 PM)

I would have then rested my gun barrel between the fence slats so to get a steady shot off. Then all I would need to do is pull my gun back as I started to turn away from the scene which is what Ed Hoffman claims to have witnessed. - MILLER

Reply:

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

Then this exchange occurred:

The "resting the barrel theory" is a guess & a bad one. The experienced sniper, cautiously & on fundamental operating procedure grounds, holding his rifle free from contact with any limiting obstructions is the reality. Remember, the sniper does not know how the car & the target within the car will move. He must give himself optimum chances to succeed. The sniper is not an amateur. -- Scull

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. -- Scull

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

Note:

Now, Mike, as a sniper yourself, would you agree with me or with BM about resting the barrel between the slats?

After hearing from you, I'll address your question in detail.

Now for my own opinion, and this is just my opinion mind you.

It was a lousy position to chose to shoot from, and certainly not one I would have chosen.

As a note there are ways to stabilize a rifle on that fence without sticking the barrel between the slats. -- Mike

Mike, BM's suggestion that Hudson heard a motorcycle backfire which Hudson mistook for the third shot is based on faulty reasoning.

Maybe Hudson heard a backfire from a cycle that he took to be a shot ... -- MILLER

Hudson heard three shots. After hearing 2 shots & after seeing the result of the second shot (Z-313), Hudson completed the association of the sound of the rifle fire he heard to the reality of the presence of a rifle that was firing. Therefore, Hudson distinguished between motorcycle backfires & rifle shots. Hudson said "from above & kind of behind." Thus, BM's idea puts the motorcycle airborne with Hudson saying absurdly: "I heard three motorcycle backfires & the second backfire destroyed JFK's head." Clearly a BM error & a nonsense.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Hudson heard three shots. After hearing 2 shots & after seeing the result of the second shot (Z-313), Hudson completed the association of the sound of the rifle fire he heard to the reality of the presence of a rifle that was firing. Therefore, Hudson distinguished between motorcycle backfires & rifle shots. Hudson said "from above & kind of behind." Thus, BM's idea puts the motorcycle airborne with Hudson saying absurdly: "I heard three motorcycle backfires & the second backfire destroyed JFK's head." Clearly a BM error & a nonsense.

If Hudson distinguished between motorcycle backfires and gunshots, then how did he not hear the same amount of shots that so many other witnesses heard up to the point of the fatal shot??? It appears that Hudson didn't hear or distinguish things as well as you wish to make it seem IMO.

And has been pointed out in the past ... and as Mike can probably verify ... a slight swing of the rifle by an inch between the slats of the fence can track as much as probably 15 to 20 feet at the street.

And your use of quotes "I heard three motorcycle backfires & the second backfire destroyed JFK's head" are your words and cannot be found in anything I have posted. When you constantly misstate the record ... it actually makes you look bad.

[Miles Scull]

Hudson heard three shots. After hearing 2 shots & after seeing the result of the second shot (Z-313), Hudson completed the association of the sound of the rifle fire he heard to the reality of the presence of a rifle that was firing. Therefore, Hudson distinguished between motorcycle backfires & rifle shots. Hudson said "from above & kind of behind." Thus, BM's idea puts the motorcycle airborne with Hudson saying absurdly: "I heard three motorcycle backfires & the second backfire destroyed JFK's head." Clearly a BM error & a nonsense.

And has been pointed out in the past ... and as Mike can probably verify ... a slight swing of the rifle by an inch between the slats of the fence can track as much as probably 15 to 20 feet at the street.

(Bill Miller @ Mar 16 2007, 04:37 PM)

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

(Bill Miller @ May 19 2008, 07:15 PM)

a slight swing of the rifle by an inch between the slats of the fence can track as much as probably 15 to 20 feet at the street. - MILLER

A resting barrel between the slats is stable only if it is NOT moved.

Why?

Because, for example, if a swing or rotation is attempted moving the butt from right to left (muzzle left to right), then the wood to barrel fixed contact (support) is lost & the barrel will fall down into the notch between the slat points.

Target acquisition is spoiled & the sniper turns beet red in embarrassment as does BM.

Edit: spelling

Edited May 19, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

I would like to see Bill's documentation for his "belief". I dispute that the govt did not know of certain films till

they were "discovered by Life Magazine".

Jack

Jack ... look across the room and find the telephone ... pick it up and call Patsy and ask her. This stuff is no secret. If you don't trust Patsy, Skaggs, and etc., then call the Museum and ask Gary Mack to refresh your memory.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

A resting barrel between the slats is stable only if it is NOT moved.

Why?

Because, for example, if a swing or rotation is attempted moving the butt from right to left (muzzle left to right), then the wood to barrel fixed contact (support) is lost & the barrel will fall down into the notch between the slat points.

Target acquisition is spoiled & the sniper turns beet red in embarrassment as does BM.

Edit: spelling

Miles, you can post all the garbage that you like for anyone who actually cares can take a rifle and lay it in any 'V" shaped structure and test what I have said against what you are claiming. This is just more of your 'Duncan has consulted Mack and Groden' and ' Bowers could see the men on the stairs' deception. If I can do it, then I am sure that most people can simply test what we have posted to see who has bothered doing what they claim and who is merely blowing off once again about something they know nothing about.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

A resting barrel between the slats is stable only if it is NOT moved.

Why?

Because, for example, if a swing or rotation is attempted moving the butt from right to left (muzzle left to right), then the wood to barrel fixed contact (support) is lost & the barrel will fall down into the notch between the slat points.

Target acquisition is spoiled & the sniper turns beet red in embarrassment as does BM.

Miles, you can post all the garbage that you like for anyone who actually cares can take a rifle and lay it in any 'V" shaped structure and test what I have said against what you are claiming. This is just more of your 'Duncan has consulted Mack and Groden' and ' Bowers could see the men on the stairs' deception. If I can do it, then I am sure that most people can simply test what we have posted to see who has bothered doing what they claim and who is merely blowing off once again about something they know nothing about.

Bill Miller

QUOTE

(Bill Miller @ Mar 16 2007, 04:37 PM)

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

QUOTE

(Bill Miller @ May 19 2008, 07:15 PM)

a slight swing of the rifle by an inch between the slats of the fence can track as much as probably 15 to 20 feet at the street. - MILLER

The dark green arrows show the EDGES of the two slats which will have contact with the rifle barrel which is represented in red.

If the rifle is rotated or swung in order to follow the moving target, then the barrel will fall down as the "V" notch expands & widens.

As the barrel drops, the sniper, as he is shuttling his head, feet & body sideways from right to left in order to swing the rifle butt right to left, finds himself trying to compensate for the barrel fall as he shuttles.

As he is doing this he is also trying to aim at a target that he has not seen or tracked until the moment of firing because his view has been blocked by the fence itself.

The probability of inadvertently grazing or knocking into the fence in this process is extremely high.

Therefore, a professional sniper never chooses such a recipe for failure or such a nonsense.

That's why Mike Williams, a marine sniper for 20 years, said:

QUOTE

Now for my own opinion, and this is just my opinion mind you.

It was a lousy position to chose to shoot from, and certainly not one I would have chosen.

As a note there are ways to stabilize a rifle on that fence without sticking the barrel between the slats. -- Mike

Edited May 20, 2008 by Miles Scull

[David G. Healy]

[...]

Zavada's report is pretty convincing in regard to authenticity, and to date there has not been one "expert" of Zavada's caliber to dispute him.

If they altered the z film, would they not have to alter every other film, and sync them perfectly?

[...]

We got another BM nutter-clone, Martha.... ROTFLMFAO!

[Bernie Laverick]

We don't have many snipers on the Forum and think we should hear Mike out. Mike, where would you have chosen and what other methods of stabalizing on the fence other than placing barrel in top slat 'v's? Remember, whoever was there might not have had his prime choice of location due to others [not involved] around or visibiilty, excape routes, being near break-down man, etc.

Peter this was asked earlier in the thread rather tongue in cheek I may add. I guessed Mike's optimum position would have been an open window high up on an adjacent building - he didn't disappoint.

QUOTE(Mike Williams @ May 14 2008, 10:42 AM)

Miles,

First off there is no range in the plaza that would require more than moderate skill to attain a hit. We are not talking a thousand yard shot here. Basic shooting skills, and a small amount of practice would have sufficed. Bill is correct from the aspect that the target would require very little lead.

To address the rifle resting on the fence issue. It would just be a matter of preference for the shooter. I would say there is no absolute answer for this question, at least none that could be given to the exclusion of all others.

Now for my own opinion, and this is just my opinion mind you.

It was a lousy position to chose to shoot from, and certainly not one I would have chosen.

It was not the origin on the head shot, and if any shot at all, a missed shot.

It would be ridiculous to back a shot with a handgun from this location, as some have claimed.

With JFK facing left at the time of the head shot, and the angle given from the knoll area, I would think we would see a transiting shot exiting the right side of the head, very likely wounding Jackie.

Nothing about that shooting location adds up.

As a note there are ways to stabilize a rifle on that fence without sticking the barrel between the slats.

Best, Mike

Hi Mike

It was a lousy position to chose to shoot from, and certainly not one I would have chosen.

Mike as an ex military man where would you have chosen? Let me guess...from an open window high up in an adjacent building?

MIKE REPLIED:

As to where I would have chosen, if the operation were put to me, and given the fact that we have to have someone in the 6th floor my positions would be as follows.

1) 6th floor, banging away with the Carcano.

2) Dal-Tex Roof, for the straight away shot, and an excellent field of fire.

3) South triple overpass area, good field of fire, decent firing angle, excellent to effect an escape.

[Bernie Laverick]

[quote(Mike Williams @ May 14 2008, 10:42 AM)

It was not the origin on the head shot, and if any shot at all, a missed shot.

Does this transalte as "There was no one there and no one fired from there...but if they did, it missed!

[Bernie Laverick]

We don't have many snipers on the Forum

Except the all usual suspects eh Peter?

[Bill Miller]

The dark green arrows show the EDGES of the two slats which will have contact with the rifle barrel which is represented in red.

If the rifle is rotated or swung in order to follow the moving target, then the barrel will fall down as the "V" notch expands & widens.

And to think I have always thought you to be some kook, but in reality you must be quite intelligent to consistently and constantly be coming up with ways to deceive the reader. The example of your gun barrel drawn between the fence slats and looking up the street shows the barrel to be wider than the "V" slat at that angle. Sure, if one swings the weapon around to a point that is perpendicular to the fence slat, then the barrel could possibly fall down between them, but certainly not at the angle that your very own illustration shows. As you recall ... my position has always been that one could wait for the target to cross his sights and pull the trigger. I then went on to say that a slight swing of the barrel could cover as much as 15 to 20 feet of the street if need to track JFK and this is a true statement.

If someone has to swing the gun perpendicular to the fence as they have just tracked a very slow moving car for probably more than 100 feet, then they have no business being entrusted to carry out such an assassination, nor any relevancy on the points I have previously made.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

quote name='Mike Williams' post='145326' date='May 15 2008, 01:00 PM'

Zavada's report is pretty convincing in regard to authenticity, and to date there has not been one "expert" of Zavada's caliber to dispute him.

If they altered the z film, would they not have to alter every other film, and sync them perfectly?

We got another BM nutter-clone, Martha.... ROTFLMFAO!

David Healy, please clarify what you mean by the term 'lone nutter'??? I think it is important that if all you intend on bringing to this forum is nothing but childish responses of labeling people as 'lone nutters' as a trade off for not being able to intelligently discuss the evidence, then you should at least offer your definition so people can have a better insight into where you are coming from exactly. By being specific about this will prevent someone from thinking you are just some 'lonesome nutter' with nothing better to do.

Thanks!

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Thanks!

Bill Miller

Placing the barrel between the slats guarantees a miss even with large (Big Foot) rifles.

The rifle butt traveling totally destabilizes the aim.

Not moving the rifle hopes that the target moves to a single point.

This is like saying Bowers did not see Big Foot near the stairs, therefore Big Foot was sitting next to Hudson on the steps.

Just as logical, as Duncan will tell you.

Edit: grammar

Edited May 20, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Placing the barrel between the slats guarantees a miss even with large (Big Foot) rifles.

The rifle butt traveling totally destabilizes the aim.

Not moving the rifle hopes that the target moves to a single point.

This is like saying Bowers did not see Big Foot near the stairs, therefore Big Foot was sitting next to Hudson on the steps.

Just as logical, as Duncan will tell you.

Its hard to discuss this subject with someone who is talking like an idiot by forming your responses to xxxxx for reactions ... sorry to disappoint you.

I have stood at the fence with a MC rifle like Oswald's, thus I know what can be done from testing it. You claim to have been in the Plaza before, but your responses make me think that you never touched on any of these subjects. It really gets tiresome listening to someone post about something, not from actually doing, but rather just to take an opposite stand when I have been there and know better. Maybe next time Kathy goes to Dallas ... you can ask her to test your latest claim so she can come back once again and tell you how wrong you were.

Bill Miller

Edited May 20, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Bill Miller

Placing the barrel between the slats guarantees a miss even with large (Big Foot) rifles.

The rifle butt traveling totally destabilizes the aim.

Not moving the rifle hopes that the target moves to a single point.

This is like saying Bowers did not see Big Foot near the stairs, therefore Big Foot was sitting next to Hudson on the steps.

Just as logical, as Duncan will tell you.

I have stood at the fence with a MC rifle like Oswald's, thus I know what can be done from testing it.

Bill Miller

OK.

There is overwhelming evidence that there were two distinct individuals, one known as Harvey Oswald & the other known as Lee Oswald.

But I have never heard of Hatman Oswald.

Are you saying that you went to the picket fence to test a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in order to see if Oswald could have been the grassy knoll sniper?

The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle has only a few inches of barrel which to put between the fence slats:

This means that to track the limo Hatman Oswald would have had to have shunted the rifle butt from right to left by taking a series of small sideways shuffle steps from right to left, like a crab.

This would completely destroy his aim & also probably the balance of his mind.

All is not well.

Edit: spelling

Edited May 21, 2008 by Miles Scull