Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Holland Shooter


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Duncan MacRae

This is my take on the simultaneous head shot theory. It goes back as far as 2003

I have posted many times my belief that a shooter was at the right side of the tree,and that this is the man that Ed Hoffman seen,and not the "Hatman" seen at the left side of the tree. The recent ( to me ) information posted here by Wim re: The Mark Lane interview with Sam Holland, appears to support this theory.

Some say my shooter can not be a shooter as the skyline in their opinion runs through the top of the picket fence.I dispute this vehemently and claim that this skyline is merely a result of degradation in that area of the Moorman polaroid.This same degradation effect can be seen on the front of the fence below this shooter, seperate from shadows caused by I believe pyrecantha trees. I have outlined the shape of the shooter for ease of viewing. The rifle appears to be short in length.

Duncan

Edited by Duncan MacRae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is my take on the simultaneous head shot theory. It goes back as far as 2003

I have posted many times my belief that a shooter was at the right side of the tree,and that this is the man that Ed Hoffman seen,and not the "Hatman" seen at the left side of the tree. The recent ( to me ) information posted here by Wim re: The Mark Lane interview with Sam Holland, appears to support this theory.

Some say my shooter can not be a shooter as the skyline in their opinion runs through the top of the picket fence.I dispute this vehemently and claim that this skyline is merely a result of degradation in that area of the Moorman polaroid.This same degradation effect can be seen on the front of the fence below this shooter, seperate from shadows caused by I believe pyrecantha trees. I have outlined the shape of the shooter for ease of viewing. The rifle appears to be short in length.

Duncan

Duncan,

Thanks for these great images & clarifying detail & animation. With regard to the simultaneous head shot theory, a question might be: does it account for or explain the head movement as seen before & after Zapruder frame 313? For example, one theory asserts that a forward head snap a fraction of a second before Z-313 is caused by a bullet strike from the rear to the rear of the head. A problem with this theory would be that except for the snap forward there is no additional evidence of a bullet impact to the head from the rear, such as deformation to the face or even a facial exit wound. In the case of the simultaneous head shot theory as shown in your image, would not the head movement have have been different from what is seen in Zapruder? For example, would not the head have been thrown more to side than it was as seen in Zapruder? Also, would not the head injuries as seen & as analyzed subsequently be very different from what was actually seen & analyzed? If Z-313 was caused by a shot from badge man's location, would not the head have been thrown more to the side that to the rear, as against what is seen in Zapruder where the head is thrown backward more than to the side? Therefore, a single shooter at the right side of the tree as seen in your image (Holland) would be the explanation. No? Badge man was there, but did not shoot.

Miles

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my take on the simultaneous head shot theory. It goes back as far as 2003

I have posted many times my belief that a shooter was at the right side of the tree,and that this is the man that Ed Hoffman seen,and not the "Hatman" seen at the left side of the tree. The recent ( to me ) information posted here by Wim re: The Mark Lane interview with Sam Holland, appears to support this theory.

Some say my shooter can not be a shooter as the skyline in their opinion runs through the top of the picket fence.I dispute this vehemently and claim that this skyline is merely a result of degradation in that area of the Moorman polaroid.This same degradation effect can be seen on the front of the fence below this shooter, seperate from shadows caused by I believe pyrecantha trees. I have outlined the shape of the shooter for ease of viewing. The rifle appears to be short in length.

Duncan

Duncan,

Maybe there were multiple hatmen.

If it helps.

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my take on the simultaneous head shot theory. It goes back as far as 2003

I have posted many times my belief that a shooter was at the right side of the tree,and that this is the man that Ed Hoffman seen,and not the "Hatman" seen at the left side of the tree. The recent ( to me ) information posted here by Wim re: The Mark Lane interview with Sam Holland, appears to support this theory.

Some say my shooter can not be a shooter as the skyline in their opinion runs through the top of the picket fence.I dispute this vehemently and claim that this skyline is merely a result of degradation in that area of the Moorman polaroid.This same degradation effect can be seen on the front of the fence below this shooter, seperate from shadows caused by I believe pyrecantha trees. I have outlined the shape of the shooter for ease of viewing. The rifle appears to be short in length.

Duncan

Duncan,

Maybe there were multiple hatmen.

If it helps.

chris

chris,

Could you "outline" any possible figures which you point to with the two red arrows? Thx

Miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan,

Thanks for these great images & clarifying detail & animation. With regard to the simultaneous head shot theory, a question might be: does it account for or explain the head movement as seen before & after Zapruder frame 313? For example, one theory asserts that a forward head snap a fraction of a second before Z-313 is caused by a bullet strike from the rear to the rear of the head.

I'd like a shot at setting the photographical record straight and I will try and do it in a way that is not argumentive because there are in my opinion some gross errors being made in Duncan's claim and how some people have interpreted the evidence and for someone who has talked to witnesses like Hoffman - they are quite errerd and not worth a lot of wasted time. The first this is that frames seen before Z313 show absolutely no motion other than the rotating of the limo as it passes left to right across Zapruder's field of view.

Also, a bullet pases through a film frame in les than 1/18th of a second and the back spray is just as immediate. There is only an initial back spray seen on the Zfilm and it is first noticeable in Z313. A second hit following this shot would cause another back spatter sraying to occur and it never happened. Sherry pointed out to me once and rightly so, that an already weakened skull from an initial hit would show as much, if not more, back spray and damage than the initial bullet. This means that a second bullet would have all but destroyed JFK's head.

For example, would not the head have been thrown more to side than it was as seen in Zapruder? Also, would not the head injuries as seen & as analyzed subsequently be very different from what was actually seen & analyzed? If Z-313 was caused by a shot from badge man's location, would not the head have been thrown more to the side that to the rear, as against what is seen in Zapruder where the head is thrown backward more than to the side? Therefore, a single shooter at the right side of the tree as seen in your image (Holland) would be the explanation. No? Badge man was there, but did not shoot.

Most of this is true and is what I said in my initial response. However, Badge Man's shot, if actually seen in Moorman's photo, would have come 3.6 frames after Z313, thus a second impact would have been quite noticeable on film. There is evidence that Badge Man's shot missed the President's head and hit the turf on the south pasture. Support for this occurrence came from Mrs. Edna Hartman who said that she saw a furrow in the grass following the shooting that an officer called a bullet strike and that it led back to the large tree above the knoll. This would be the Badge Man location.

As for Duncan's shooter .... several problems exist. One is that the size of what he thinks is the torso of a shooter is far too large to be human. JFK's head for instance, is as large as most of the men on the steps bodies as seen in Moorman's photo. This means that a human taken from the steps and placed even further back into the RR yard would shrink in size as well because of the added distance from the camera. The point being is that Duncan's outline doesn't account for this fact concerning perspective.

Another point is that I have walked the RR yard with Ed Hoffman and he places the man he saw at the location of the Hudson tree. This is also the same location that Holland took Mark Lane in the film "Rush to Judgment".

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"a bullet pases through a film frame in les than 1/18th of a second [/i"]- That depends on whether it travels towards, away or across the FOV.

whatever way

All bullets leave a trace in the medium it travels through. It compressses air and leaves a vaccuum tunnel that air moves into. This affects light speed and behaviour. In a way the compression-vaccuum trail is a long twisted expanding wedge shaped lens in an otherwise fairly uniform medium. When that medium is also a mist of fine colored particles one can expect changes in densities. Colors mix and produce other colors. The medium in this instance is gas and fine liquid droplets. While the bullet itself may not be seen, its turbulent passage affect the photons striking the film surface at any time while that disturbance is taking place and the film is exposed.

red on green is a particular situation. This posssibility of an identifiable trajectory trace can't be as easily dismissed as this.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my take on the simultaneous head shot theory. It goes back as far as 2003

I have posted many times my belief that a shooter was at the right side of the tree,and that this is the man that Ed Hoffman seen,and not the "Hatman" seen at the left side of the tree. The recent ( to me ) information posted here by Wim re: The Mark Lane interview with Sam Holland, appears to support this theory.

Some say my shooter can not be a shooter as the skyline in their opinion runs through the top of the picket fence.I dispute this vehemently and claim that this skyline is merely a result of degradation in that area of the Moorman polaroid.This same degradation effect can be seen on the front of the fence below this shooter, seperate from shadows caused by I believe pyrecantha trees. I have outlined the shape of the shooter for ease of viewing. The rifle appears to be short in length.

Duncan

Duncan,

Maybe there were multiple hatmen.

If it helps.

chris

chris,

Could you "outline" any possible figures which you point to with the two red arrows? Thx

Miles

Hi Miles,

I hope the animation gives you a better idea of what I initially saw, in regards to the white hat on the right.

On the left is a person with a black hat on. imo

At this point, I can only see the hats and partial faces attached, above the fence.

Duncan, I believe your theory is very promising.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris, for the animation.

Duncan

Thanks for the for the animation, Chris.

By the way, this study seems to coincide for the (Holland) shooter location.

http://www.jfklancer.com/nix-needham.html

Question: If the Roberdeau map ( http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg ) is accurate, as it seems to be, then are there problems with trajectories with the shooter firing from a point along the long arm of the picket fence? At certain points the tree trunk, seen in Roberdeau in light brown ("trunk bent south"), prevents sighting & firing. Any shot from certain positions (points) along the fence would have had to have passed within inches of either the left or right side of this tree trunk in order to have struck at Zapruder 313.

Can anyone provide any photographic or other analysis on this question? Right or left of tree, which is more likely? Left?

Miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this study seems to coincide for the (Holland) shooter location.

http://www.jfklancer.com/nix-needham.html

Yes it does Miles. Rick Needham and I agreed at the time that both his location and my location were and are the same. Rick since then, and as far as I know, has changed his stance in claiming ( along with Bill Miller ) that the Nix figure is actually at the left of the tree as we view it, and that the Nix perspective is misleading and can not be compared with my Moorman shooter location perspective. Rick seems to have vanished from the face of the Earth, so I don'tknow what his view is at this moment in time is. My view is that Bill and Rick are profoundly wrong in their perspective analysis.

Duncan

Ducan,

Thanks for this explanation. Of course, you have seen the Roberbeau map. If you blow this map up for detail a lot of different photo perspective is referable. It would be really great if someone could plot the points of locus for each theoretically placed shooter as photographically claimed by Bill, Rick, Jack, Chris or anybody else with reference to the Roberbeau map. What are the trajectories? For example, a direct line of sight down the plane of the picket fence intersects Umbrella man. Would a shooter allow the tree trunk to pass by in front of & through his field of fire. Possibly so, if he anticipated same. Any thoughts?

Miles

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"a bullet pases through a film frame in les than 1/18th of a second [/i"]- That depends on whether it travels towards, away or across the FOV.

whatever way

All bullets leave a trace in the medium it travels through. It compressses air and leaves a vaccuum tunnel that air moves into. This affects light speed and behaviour. In a way the compression-vaccuum trail is a long twisted expanding wedge shaped lens in an otherwise fairly uniform medium. When that medium is also a mist of fine colored particles one can expect changes in densities. Colors mix and produce other colors. The medium in this instance is gas and fine liquid droplets. While the bullet itself may not be seen, its turbulent passage affect the photons striking the film surface at any time while that disturbance is taking place and the film is exposed.

red on green is a particular situation. This posssibility of an identifiable trajectory trace can't be as easily dismissed as this.

John, the camera and film that Zapruder used did not and could not have captured any part of a bullet in flight, nor any trails it may have created while in flight. I also want to make clear that the field of view that Zapruder had in a single film frame during the shooting did not cover a vast amount of distance. From Z186 when the earliest point for a shot to have been fired because Hugh Betzner said that he had taken his photo just prior to the first shot sounding .... from edge to edge of Zapruder's film frame there is less than 100 of the street visible on the left to right plane. A bullet travels at about 2000 feet per second, thus it would pass through Zapruder's field of view in less than 1/20th of a film frame. Considering that between Z312 (no damage visible to JFK's head) to Z313 (skull plate already in midair) the bullet has already passed through the film frame and this was the point I was making in my previous response.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this study seems to coincide for the (Holland) shooter location.

http://www.jfklancer.com/nix-needham.html

Yes it does Miles. Rick Needham and I agreed at the time that both his location and my location were and are the same. Rick since then, and as far as I know, has changed his stance in claiming ( along with Bill Miller ) that the Nix figure is actually at the left of the tree as we view it, and that the Nix perspective is misleading and can not be compared with my Moorman shooter location perspective. Rick seems to have vanished from the face of the Earth, so I don'tknow what his view is at this moment in time is. My view is that Bill and Rick are profoundly wrong in their perspective analysis.

Duncan

I do not know how many times you have been to Dealey Plaza, Duncan, but I can tell you that it is the Moorman location that is misleading as to which side of the tree the Hat Man is seen and not the Nix film. The reason for this is because of Moorman's steep angle to that location Vs. Nix being more straight out in front of it. In other words, if you position a person at the Hat Man location as seen in Moorman's photo and then have him remain still while you walk to the Nix location - you will see that he is on the west side of the tree. This is what Needham knew - I know it - and anyone who understands perspective and has been to Dealey Plaza knows it. This information is only being shared with you for your benefit ... how you utilize it is your business.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this study seems to coincide for the (Holland) shooter location.

http://www.jfklancer.com/nix-needham.html

Yes it does Miles. Rick Needham and I agreed at the time that both his location and my location were and are the same. Rick since then, and as far as I know, has changed his stance in claiming ( along with Bill Miller ) that the Nix figure is actually at the left of the tree as we view it, and that the Nix perspective is misleading and can not be compared with my Moorman shooter location perspective. Rick seems to have vanished from the face of the Earth, so I don'tknow what his view is at this moment in time is. My view is that Bill and Rick are profoundly wrong in their perspective analysis.

Duncan

I do not know how many times you have been to Dealey Plaza, Duncan, but I can tell you that it is the Moorman location that is misleading as to which side of the tree the Hat Man is seen and not the Nix film. The reason for this is because of Moorman's steep angle to that location Vs. Nix being more straight out in front of it. In other words, if you position a person at the Hat Man location as seen in Moorman's photo and then have him remain still while you walk to the Nix location - you will see that he is on the west side of the tree. This is what Needham knew - I know it - and anyone who understands perspective and has been to Dealey Plaza knows it. This information is only being shared with you for your benefit ... how you utilize it is your business.

Bill

Bill,

Your explanation of the perspectives vis-à-vis the various photos seems fairly clear. However, for further, more exact clarity wouldn't it be better to plot photo referenced shooter positions on the Roberbeau map, - and trajectories from those positions. I don't have the CAD software, etc., to do this myself. But you do, don't you? I have noticed that a few important surprises might result from such a mapping. Why not?

Miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ducan,

Thanks for this explanation. Of course, you have seen the Roberbeau map. If you blow this map up for detail a lot of different photo perspective is referable. It would be really great if someone could plot the points of locus for each theoretically placed shooter as photographically claimed by Bill, Rick, Jack, Chris or anybody else with reference to the Roberbeau map. What are the trajectories? For example, a direct line of sight down the plane of the picket fence intersects Umbrella man. Would a shooter allow the tree trunk to pass by in front of & through his field of fire. Possibly so, if he anticipated same. Any thoughts?

Miles, while Don's map is accurate in mathematics and distances - it is not drawn to scale, thus using it to plot possible visible trajectories would not be as helpful as using an acutal overhead photograph IMO. While not drawn to scale - the principles of perspective as to how Moorman's view compares to Nix's view are shown below.

post-1084-1173638046_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Your explanation of the perspectives vis-à-vis the various photos seems fairly clear. However, for further, more exact clarity wouldn't it be better to plot photo referenced shooter positions on the Roberbeau map, - and trajectories from those positions. I don't have the CAD software, etc., to do this myself. But you do, don't you? I have noticed that a few important surprises might result from such a mapping. Why not?

Miles

Because Don's map is not drawn to scale - any trajectories would not be accurate with those actually possible in Dealey Plaza. Let me give an example ... It has been a while since I went over the numbers on Don's map, so I will give an example of one of its problems by using a hypothetical situation that may not be found on Don's map in the exact way I am describing it.

Let's say that a wall is 60 feet long and an adjoining wall is 20 feet long. If the 20' adjoining wall is drawn to look 1/2 the lenght of the of the 60' wall, then any lines of sight using those walls is not accurate, thus the trajectories visually plotted are not accurate. This is why photos are always better if a map is not drawn to scale IMO.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ducan,

Thanks for this explanation. Of course, you have seen the Roberbeau map. If you blow this map up for detail a lot of different photo perspective is referable. It would be really great if someone could plot the points of locus for each theoretically placed shooter as photographically claimed by Bill, Rick, Jack, Chris or anybody else with reference to the Roberbeau map. What are the trajectories? For example, a direct line of sight down the plane of the picket fence intersects Umbrella man. Would a shooter allow the tree trunk to pass by in front of & through his field of fire. Possibly so, if he anticipated same. Any thoughts?

Miles, while Don's map is accurate in mathematics and distances - it is not drawn to scale, thus using it to plot possible visible trajectories would not be as helpful as using an acutal overhead photograph IMO. While not drawn to scale - the principles of perspective as to how Moorman's view compares to Nix's view are shown below.

post-1084-1173638046_thumb.jpg

Thx, Bill,

On expanding the map, I found a scale rule (by feet) on Don's map & noticed that it purports to be a professional survey map, professionally surveyed. Is this, then, not so? :blink:

Of course, an overhead photo would be best, but is there one?

I think that Don's map is accurate.

Miles

Edited by Miles Scull
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...