Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why there was no "classic gunman"


Bill Miller
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cross referencing photos and films is one of the best tools we have for debunking or verifying observations. This is how one can check the accuracy of the 'classic gunman claim' ...

The attachments did not post in the order I placed them, so I have number the images for referencing.

1) We must first locate the alleged 'classic gunman' figure seen in the Nix film. (see example one}

2) Next we check his location against a recreation photograph of better quality so to find the borders of the shelter walls and openings. When doing so we find that the alleged 'classic gunman' has to be on the South side of the Southwest corner of the shelter wall - somewhere between the wall and the step in the concrete wall. This obvious for what appears to be a possible gunman crosses over the red side wall line that has been placed on the images. (see example two)

3) Next I offer an overhead view showing the Nix line of sight over the step in the wall to the southwest corner of the shelter wall. Again, the reason for choosing the SW corner is that the alleged classic gunman figure overlaps part of that South wall of the shelter. (see example three)

4) We now go to another photo like Moorman's that shows the walkway between the step in the wall and the SW corner of the shelter wall. We have a Dallas sky for a backdrop to work with so there is no room for debating as to whether the tree foliage is hiding the figure. If the classic gunman was said to have been elevated high enough to have seen JFK, then he is elevated high enough for Mary Moorman to have seen him in her camera for JFK was much lower to the street than Moorman's camera. I have red boxed the area between the step in the wall to the south side of the shelter and there simply is no one there to be seen. (see example four)

Considering Moorman's photo was in her possession the 30 minutes following the assassination up until the time it was filmed for TV, thus it is genuine ... then the only logical and sensible conclusion to make is that there was no individual positioned at the alleged classic gunman location in the Nix film at the time the President was fatally shot.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice work Bill!

Agreed 100%. That was introduced as a diversion, IMO.

I call him 'The Boatman' due to the structure he appears to be lying on. If you compare with Moorman, there is no such 'vehicle.' Also, if you have been to DP, you would note that the fence would need to appear, even at this perspective, and any such object would need to be something around 7 - 9' high in order to be seen. This object seems to be between the retaining wall and the fence, and IMO, may as well be a boat.

While I realize cars were much larger in the 1960's - it just doesn't work.

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice work Bill!

Agreed 100%.  That was introduced as a diversion, IMO.

" " " " I call him 'The Boatman' due to the structure he appears to be lying on.  If you compare with Moorman, there is no such 'vehicle.' " " " ".

- lee

Thanks, Lee. The car was actually in the parking lot and as others have said before - the alleged 'classic gunman' is not back by the car, but rather in front of the South side of the shelter wall. The issue has been whether he was nothing more than light spots and shadows on the wall or a real person. I hope that the process I used for determining this matter can be observed by other researchers and utilized when investigating other issues. Cross referencing photos and films gives us a tool that only actually going to the plaza could beat.

Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue has been whether he was nothing more than light spots and shadows on the wall or a real person.

Two things: I greatly prefer the evidence not to be drawn over and ruined.

Second, there is a guy in marksman position at the break in the wall.

Robardeau says NIX was EIGHT FEET above MOORMAN in altitude, eye level with the classic gunmnan.

I cannot identify him, and I don't even claim he fired a gun, but I see a person there, crouched in the classic marksman position, with an automobile close at hand.

How is this a distraction?

This is the classic gunman film image in NIX.

Unexplained, to my level of required evidentiary proof. A possible gunman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue has been whether he was nothing more than light spots and shadows on the wall or a real person.

I greatly prefer the evidence not to be drawn over and ruined.

I agree with Shanet's point about not prejudicing the photos by drawing lines over them in the sense of also not prejudicing the titling of the debates of the threads; that they not predispose the debate with a stated conclusion, as Bill has done here. This would be a better, fairer, and more scholarly thread absent the skewed title.

Tim

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this a distraction?

This is the classic gunman film image in NIX.

Unexplained, to my level of required evidentiary proof. A possible gunman.

Shanet - you have missed the point, I guess. For one thing - if there was a gunman actually there and he was shooting at Kennedy, then Moorman would also see him because she is higher elevated than JFK was. In other words - if you can look over a wall and see me - I can certainly look back at you. So again - where is the gunman in Moorman's photograph? You cannot simply say he is behind the wall if he is elevated high enough to be shooting at Kennedy.

I don't know a better way to stress that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense, except that Moorman was down in the rut, and the gunman back behind a low wall opposite NIX...and I never said this figure ever shot at anybody, I said he posed in position by a car top...and I put very little confidence in that Moorman photograph and what that shabby Polaroid does or does not show because of its many degrees of decay... the film, Nix, and what it shows on the North Knoll remains an enigma that is probably best not to explain away but to explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Shanet with regard to the entitlement of threads; that they not predispose the debate with a stated conclusion, as Bill has done here.

Tim

The conclusion came from my own time spent in the plaza and by cross referencing the available assassination films and photos. Once the alleged classic gunman's location is pinpointed in Moorman's photograph, then it can be determined if he is seen or not. I had done those things before starting this thread. If you see a classic gunman between the step in the wall and the south shelter wall - then feel free to point it out to everyone.

There is a rule of them that most people use and it goes like this ...

If you have an image that you think may show someone or something hidden in deep shadow - then cross reference it with another photo of the same area that isn't covered in deep shadow. Then if you find that the lighter image shows no one or nothing is there ... you have only two options.

1) The lighter photo has been altered so to remove the classic gunman figure or ...

2) The lighter photo is not altered and classic gunman figure in the dark image was just an illusion brought on by deep shadow and light reflections.

Here is another example of how a lighter image was able to show there was nothing in a particular spot on the Nix film. The area in question was said to be in the area of the white circle. By cross referencing Marie Muchmore's film I was able to show that no one was standing or crouching near the corner of the wodden fence. (see the two examples below)

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense, except that Moorman was down in the rut, and the gunman back behind a low wall opposite NIX...and I never said this figure ever shot at anybody, I said he posed in position by a car top...and I put very little confidence in that Moorman photograph and what that shabby Polaroid does or does not show because of its many degrees of decay... the film, Nix, and what it shows on the North Knoll remains an enigma that is probably best not to explain away but to explain.

Shanet - you and Tim are not on the same wave length as to where you think this alleged figure is, so I will have to address you separately. The car is well behind the shelter. The alleged 'classic gunman' figure is overlapping the South side of the shelter wall, thus he cannot be back near the car at all. If you look in the replica image I offered in my original post - I aligned the outer shelter wall (and marked it with a red line) - the doorway - the step in the concrete wall and etc., all the same. I did this so everyone could see how far over that red vertical line the classic gunman went. He basically matched the individual I had circled in my replica photo. With the alleged classic gunman shape being in front of the shelter wall, then there is no longer a choice of him being back by the car.

With the alleged 'classic gunman' being somewhere between the South shelter wall and the step in the concrete wall, then he cannot be too low for Moorman to have seen him in her photograph. So now we are back to square one with no one being seen between the shelter wall and the step in the concrete wall in Mary Moorman's photograph. I hope I have better explained why the alleged figure has to be in front of the shelter wall and not behind it back by the car.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanet - you and Tim are not on the same wave length as to where you think this alleged figure is, so I will have to address you separately. The car is well behind the shelter. The alleged 'classic gunman' figure is overlapping the South side of the shelter wall, thus he cannot be back near the car at all. If you look in the replica image I offered in my original post - I aligned the outer shelter wall (and marked it with a red line) - the doorway - the step in the concrete wall and etc., all the same. I did this so everyone could see how far over that red vertical line the classic gunman went. He matched the individual I had circled in my replica photo. With the alleged classic gunman shape being in front of the shelter wall, then there is no longer a choice of him being back by the car. With the alleged 'classic gunman' being somewhere between the South shelter wall and the step in the concrete wall, then he cannot be too low for Moorman to have seen in her photograph.

Bill,

I agree with every word you have said in the above quote; I have no excuse to make for why Shanet insists on placing the hypothetical gunman atop a car. You and I agree that to be an impossibility, given that the appearance of a gunman is in front of the shelter wall. But your own statement clearly is in conflict with the ITEK finding that for a gunman to be in the location you identify, he would have had to be 9' above the ground. If one stands at that location, the line of sight is not only clear to the location of the headshot, but also to the current "X" placed in the street, 4' below the height of JFK's head. Prior to this post, the only point I'd made was that your title for this thread is conclusionary and prejudicial, thereby foreclosing on reasonable debate. If one searches through all of the titles of all of the threads, you will find it very rare that someone titles a thread with a conclusion. I would be far more comfortable having this debate without such a prejucial title.

The Nix classic gunman figure simply defies the laws of probability that at the moment of the shooting, the light and shadow conspired to form such a coincidental, marksman-type appearance, which changes immediately after the headshot. I'm not saying the purported gunman immediately moves away, only that the classic marksman posture changes. The so-called light and shadow of the hypothetical gunman are of a distinctly different nature than the light and shadow through the tree higher on the wall.

I do agree that the physical alignments necessitate that for there to be a gunman at the shelter wall, he would have been within Moorman's line of sight. Others have made arguments about the chain of custody of the crude, polaroid black and white Moorman photo, the timing of which I acknowledge you to have addressed in your initial posting. I still can only say that I find the shades of gray in this remarkably nondescript photo to be inconclusive, while you do not. Here is a rendition showing a red mark with an "X' to depict your certainty that there is no gunman, let alone any person at that location, while at the same time you assert absolute certainty that there are two gunmen visible in the same photo, depicted by the yellow circles. I do not see gunmen in the yellow circles anymore than I see a clearcut gunman at the red mark.

While I was writing this post, Bill edited his with the following:

"With the alleged 'classic gunman' being somewhere between the South shelter wall and the step in the concrete wall, then he cannot be too low for Moorman to have seen him in her photograph. So now we are back to square one with no one being seen between the shelter wall and the step in the concrete wall in Mary Moorman's photograph. I hope I have better explained why the alleged figure has to be in front of the shelter wall and not behind it back by the car."

Again, I have no disagreement with that statement. But when we consider an "alleged 'classic gunman' being somewhere between the South shelter wall and the step in the concrete wall," I want to be clear that when I photographed the headshot location a few weeks ago from the "classic gunman" location, I stayed all the way back against the shelter rather than moving closer to the retaining wall to make it clear that even from that far back, the "X" on Elm Street, 4' lower than the president's head location, would have been in sight. This clearly, and absolutely disproves the ITEK finding that the gunman would have had to be 9' above the ground as in the following quote from the HSCA report"

"Further study by Itek of the ground elevation in relation to the retaining wall showed that a line of fire toward Dealey Plaza would require that a rifle near this structure be 9 feet above ground."

From the location in which I am standing in the following photo, all the way back up against the shelter and not at all moved forward toward the retaining wall, the clearance over the retaining wall was still overcompensated (4') enough to even reveal the "X" in the street asphalt.

Here is the view from that location, clearly showing the ITEK findings to have been inexplicably faulty:

Tim

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nix classic gunman figure simply defies the laws of probability that at the moment of the shooting, the light and shadow conspired to form such a coincidental, marksman-type appearance, which changes immediately after the headshot.  I'm not saying the purported gunman immediately moves away, only that the classic marksman posture changes.  The so-called light and shadow of the hypothetical gunman are of a distinctly different nature than the light and shadow through the tree higher on the wall.

The alleged changes in posture is what happens when a camera is moving around as it pans or slightly moves one way up or down. Look at the sun spots on the fence just to our right of the Hudson tree in the same Nix film - they change shape and move, too. The same thing happens on the shelter wall, as well. (see the Needham clip attached)

I do agree that the physical alignments necessitate that for there to be a gunman at the shelter wall, he would have been within Moorman's line of sight.  Others have made arguments about the chain of custody of the crude, polaroid black and white Moorman photo, the timing of which I acknowledge you to have addressed in your initial posting.  I still can only say that I find the shades of gray in this remarkably nondescript photo to be inconclusive, while you do not.

When you can see all the way to the shelter wall and still see the wall - there are no shades of gray to be confused about. I mean ... one has no problem seeing the top of the tree against the Dallas sky or where the fence stops and starts, so the same would apply to someone standing there in Moorman's photo.

Here is a rendition showing a red mark with an "X' to depict your certainty that there is no gunman, let alone any person at that location, while at the same time you assert absolute certainty that there are two gunmen visible in the same photo, depicted by the yellow circles.  I do not see gunmen in the yellow circles anymore than I see a clearcut gunman at the red mark.

The Hat Man's hat can be seen against the Dallas sky and it isn't there in photos taken after the fact. {This means if something is not seen after the shooting, then it wasn't a fixed item in the plaza and has moved away after the shooting) The same would apply to the 'classic gunman' in the sense that he would be seen against the Dallas sky in Moorman's photo. That brings me to this next point ... the shift from the Nix location to Moorman's would push the alleged 'classic gunman' to the left and away from the wall. Your red 'x' went the wrong direction. I marked the correct space with a red box in my Moorman cropping. The Badge Man has a dark backdrop of tree foliage behind his figure and it makes him hard to see. What supports the Badge Man being real and not part of the foliage is that when the image around him is lightened and contrasted, then his image doesn't wash out with the foliage, but separates from the tree foliage instead. No matter how much you do the same with the area next to the shelter wall in Moorman's photo ... you will not see anyone standing there.

I want to be clear that when I photographed the headshot location a few weeks ago from the "classic gunman" location, I stayed all the way back against the shelter rather than moving closer to the retaining wall to make it clear that even from that far back, the "X" on Elm Street, 4' lower than the president's head location, would have been in sight.  This clearly, and absolutely disproves the ITEK finding that the gunman would have had to be 9' above the ground as in the following quote from the HSCA report"

Tim - I think you have misread ITEK's report. They were saying that if the alleged 'classic gunman' was near the car behind the shelter, then he would have to be 9' tall to have seen the motorcade. Because they knew that wasn't probable - they then addressed the alleged figure being at the shelter wall. That's when they concluded that it was sun spots on the wall.

BTW - The photo taken of you on the steps was not on the Nix LOS. You are too far to the right of the red vertical line that ran through the center of the alleged 'classic gunman'. The 'alleged 'classic gunman' as seen in the Nix film was further west of the door opening. It looks like a good photo of you on the shelter steps, but it hasn't any value outside of that. I wish I could have been there when you were because I am sure I could have walked you through this stuff and had you understand it better while right there on location. I offer an example of your position difference to the 'CGM' below ...

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nix classic gunman figure simply defies the laws of probability that at the moment of the shooting, the light and shadow conspired to form such a coincidental, marksman-type appearance, which changes immediately after the headshot.  I'm not saying the purported gunman immediately moves away, only that the classic marksman posture changes.  The so-called light and shadow of the hypothetical gunman are of a distinctly different nature than the light and shadow through the tree higher on the wall.

The alleged changes in posture is what happens when a camera is moving around as it pans or slightly moves one way up or down. Look at the sun spots on the fence just to our right of the Hudson tree in the same Nix film - they change shape and move, too. The same thing happens on the shelter wall, as well. (see the Needham clip attached)

I do agree that the physical alignments necessitate that for there to be a gunman at the shelter wall, he would have been within Moorman's line of sight.  Others have made arguments about the chain of custody of the crude, polaroid black and white Moorman photo, the timing of which I acknowledge you to have addressed in your initial posting.  I still can only say that I find the shades of gray in this remarkably nondescript photo to be inconclusive, while you do not.

When you can see all the way to the shelter wall and still see the wall - there are no shades of gray to be confused about. I mean ... one has no problem seeing the top of the tree against the Dallas sky or where the fence stops and starts, so the same would apply to someone standing there in Moorman's photo.

Here is a rendition showing a red mark with an "X' to depict your certainty that there is no gunman, let alone any person at that location, while at the same time you assert absolute certainty that there are two gunmen visible in the same photo, depicted by the yellow circles.  I do not see gunmen in the yellow circles anymore than I see a clearcut gunman at the red mark.

The Hat Man's hat can be seen against the Dallas sky and it isn't there in photos taken after the fact. {This means if something is not seen after the shooting, then it wasn't a fixed item in the plaza and has moved away after the shooting) The same would apply to the 'classic gunman' in the sense that he would be seen against the Dallas sky in Moorman's photo. That brings me to this next point ... the shift from the Nix location to Moorman's would push the alleged 'classic gunman' to the left and away from the wall. Your red 'x' went the wrong direction. I marked the correct space with a red box in my Moorman cropping. The Badge Man has a dark backdrop of tree foliage behind his figure and it makes him hard to see. What supports the Badge Man being real and not part of the foliage is that when the image around him is lightened and contrasted, then his image doesn't wash out with the foliage, but separates from the tree foliage instead. No matter how much you do the same with the area next to the shelter wall in Moorman's photo ... you will not see anyone standing there.

I want to be clear that when I photographed the headshot location a few weeks ago from the "classic gunman" location, I stayed all the way back against the shelter rather than moving closer to the retaining wall to make it clear that even from that far back, the "X" on Elm Street, 4' lower than the president's head location, would have been in sight.  This clearly, and absolutely disproves the ITEK finding that the gunman would have had to be 9' above the ground as in the following quote from the HSCA report"

Tim - I think you have misread ITEK's report. They were saying that if the alleged 'classic gunman' was near the car behind the shelter, then he would have to be 9' tall to have seen the motorcade. Because they knew that wasn't probable - they then addressed the alleged figure being at the shelter wall. That's when they concluded that it was sun spots on the wall.

BTW - The photo taken of you on the steps was not on the Nix LOS. You are too far to the right of the red vertical line that ran through the center of the alleged 'classic gunman'. The 'alleged 'classic gunman' as seen in the Nix film was further west of the door opening. It looks like a good photo of you on the shelter steps, but it hasn't any value outside of that. I wish I could have been there when you were because I am sure I could have walked you through this stuff and had you understand it better while right there on location. I offer an example of your position difference to the 'CGM' below ...

____________________________

Bill: Before you suggest that someone has misread any report by Itek I suggest you do some research as to who and what Itek is. CBS would have us believe they are simply an "independent film analysis" group in Lexington , Ma. But they are very tied to intelligence. Too busy with day job (attorney) at the moment to provice cites, but had to at least comment on yourwords above. Will provide sources, (albeit 1975), when I get a break from court, after the 17th.

Dawn

ps My husband, (also an atty.)- who is very gun savvy looked at Tim Carroll's classic gunman photos a few days ago and it was clear to Erick- (and me)- that this WAS a gunman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ps My husband, (also an atty.)- who is very gun savvy looked at Tim Carroll's classic gunman photos a few days ago and it was clear to Erick- (and me)- that this WAS a gunman.

Dawn,

I can appreciate your views about ITEK, but in this case it could have been Hoover and the CIA themselves looking at this issue and their answer would not call for any type of cover-up. If your husband is an attorney, then he should be use to looking at evidence. Show him Moorman's photo and tell him that it was taken at the same moment the alleged figure was supposed to be seen at the shelter wall in the Nix film. Tell your husband that Moorman's photograph was an instant Polaroid and can be shown to be genuine and unaltered. Then ask him to look at the enlargement of the area between the step in the concrete wall and the shelter and have him point out this gunman to you.

As an attorney, your husband should be able to see the problem right off if given 'all' the facts. If Moorman's photo is genuine and there is no gunman at the shelter wall, then there is no 'classic gunman' in the Nix image. The best one can do is say that the light and shadows on the wall looked like a gunman and that's what he'd be stuck with in a court of Law.

Once again - for there to be a real person seen in the Nix film known as the 'classic gunman' ... he must be between the two points shown on Moorman's photograph. I cannot see anyone there, nor has anyone ever said they could see anyone there. All I can ask of those who insist on saying there is a gunman seen in the Nix film is to point to where he is seen in Moorman's Polaroid showing the exact same spot between the step in the conrete wall and the outer South shelter wall. So far no one has done so.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...