Jump to content
The Education Forum

The 3 Men on the Steps


Don Bailey

Recommended Posts

You (Miles) are the author of your own record as a serious and responsible researcher ...

Bill Miller[/b]

As a serious and responsible researcher, I will author my record by expressing sympathy to a fellow member who apparently has been

made the butt of a cruel joke & consequently has been made to look a laughing stock to the readers of this & other threads.

I'm sorry this has happened.

What do you think?

Do you agree with Duncan, now, that you may have been the victim of someone who bears you ill?

(As to your requests to me to provide you with off topic data, I'm afraid that this is "Don's" thread & his topic is the 3 men's ID only.)

Like Duncan, I really do not see a need to continue on this thread, especially considering what has happened.

Duncan's right.

Oh Miles,

You are calling yourself gullible and claiming Bill as victim (as I'm sure you were here too).And how noble of you to request, on Bill's behalf, that this matter cease!!

So gracious!!!

Kathy

Psssst:

:eek 'Tween you and me, I think it is really a way for you to get out of answering Bill's question.

:secret

Kathy,

Ssshhhhhh.

Between you & me, I don't want Miller further humiliated & have any more donkey tails pinned on his already wounded vanity.

Why?... Ssshhhhh.

Because Miller has supported Ed Hoffman's tale as Gospel truth and now the hydrogen bomb has hit ground zero :eek :

hbomb-l.jpg

http://www.dfwvirtualtours.net/jfkstuff/freewayman.pdf

Ouch!

Miles, I truly don't see any reason why Bill should be embarrassed at all. I don't know why you go on as you do, seriously.

BTW,Didn't you say that you weren't going to reply to anything that didn't have to do with the "3 men" because it was Don's thread, and that would be :secret???Why,then, are you bringing THIS up? Isn't this :secret as well???

Kathy,

:eek

Miller is beginning to debate with himself. See post # 65. He's going back to old threads, now. This is not a good sign. It's like hearing voices.

Miller just saw the answer to his own question in the new hard evidence. Or did he even read the new hard evidence, at all.

But, instead of meeting the new hard evidence Miller is off on a goose chase trying to defeat ME by raising up straw men patched together from old obsolete threads.

That's not research. That's wounded vanity.

Of course, here's what Miller missed or is deliberately ignoring.

See the SMOKE?

embankment-Note2.jpg

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Miller is beginning to debate with himself. See post # 65. He's going back to old threads, now. This is not a good sign. It's like hearing voices.

Miller just saw the answer to his own question in the new hard evidence. Or did he even read the new hard evidence, at all.

But, instead of meeting the new hard evidence Miller is off on a goose chase trying to defeat ME by raising up straw men patched together from old obsolete threads.

That's not research. That's wounded vanity.

Of course, here's what Miller missed or is deliberately ignoring.

See the SMOKE?[/color]

Old threads are notorious for making double talkers very uncomfortable.

Now about the flash of light or smoke Bowers spoke of. Bowers said this occurred at the time of the shots being fired. And since no motorcycle ever shot half way up the incline in the first place, then why are you even mentioning it??? Trying to make a case for why Bowers could have meant something else had something that didn't actually happen of occurred is somewhat of a joke!

Bowers placed the men on the 'High Ground' and the 'smoke/flash of light' at the immediate vicinity on the embankment where these men were. That would be the same two men that Bowers told Mr. Ball under oath that were in a direct line between his tower and the mouth of the underpass. That's where Bowers saw the flash of light and/or smoke, which is exactly how it would have looked to me had someone been firing a gun at the fence with it aimed at the motorcade.

Now, so we are clear here ... Bowers told Lane about a cop riding a motorcycle up the incline, which we know didn't really happen. Bowers said this was one of the first officers who came into the RR yard not counting the two already mentioned on the underpass, which is possible. Then Bowers takes Lane back a bit to the 'time of the shooting' when he speaks of seeing the flash of light and/or smoke. These are two totally different points in time that your document didn't make clear, but Lee Bowers does make it clear in his filmed interview. Go to the assassination films and watch how much time passes before anyone goes up the incline towards the RR yard and equate that to when the shots were fired.

Still pondering the time lapse of when a cycle went even close to the incline? Maybe this can give you a start ..... In a response you (Miles) posted, you inserted a 'Bond photo' taken well after the shooting. Zapruder and Sitzman are inside the shelter - Moorman and Hill are sitting in the grass on the south pasture - Charles and little Joe Brehm have moved well off the curb and are also sitting in the grass on the south pasture - Hudson and the red shirted men are seated on the incline. No where by that time has a motorcycle been abandoned on the incline or even parked at the curbside. Can we say that by the time Bond took that photo that the moment of the shooting Bowers spoke of concerning the flash of light and/or smoke has long since passed - I think we can!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0267&st=195

I personally believe you are too smart not to have known this and I am certainly too smart to let you get away with it. Now do you care to address those two trees you marked with red arrows from the Thompson photo or should I ask you to address them a few more times just to show your so-called sincerity in wanting to get at the truth???

Here is a little refresher for you ...

EBC

Question:

Is Bowers talking about the "two trees" pointed to by the two red lines? Or, am I confused here? I realise other trees are candidates.

Thx

M

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miller is beginning to debate with himself. See post # 65. He's going back to old threads, now. This is not a good sign. It's like hearing voices.

Miller just saw the answer to his own question in the new hard evidence. Or did he even read the new hard evidence, at all.

But, instead of meeting the new hard evidence Miller is off on a goose chase trying to defeat ME by raising up straw men patched together from old obsolete threads.

That's not research. That's wounded vanity.

Of course, here's what Miller missed or is deliberately ignoring.

See the SMOKE?[/color]

Bill Miller

Still hiding from the rather unpleasant realisation that you have been totally wrong for twenty years?

Deal with this, & remember 52 cards at all times, please:

----> http://www.dfwvirtualtours.net/jfkstuff/freewayman.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still hiding from the rather unpleasant realisation that you have been totally wrong for twenty years?

Deal with this, & remember 52 cards at all times, please:[/color][/b]

I thought this was a thread about the men on the steps ... in fact, its called 'the 3 men on the steps', so is there anything in my previous post that you'd care to address or is it your intention to jump thread and risk losing your train of thought?

Here are my two previous post in the event that you cannot find them ...

Kathy and all,

The reason Miles knows that he doesn't want to answer that question about the smoke, as a serious researcher only looking for the truth would, is that when the smoke was brought up in another thread some time ago, it was Miles who tried to push the smoke away from the Hat Man location to a point even further "WEST" towards the underpass so to attribute it to Duncan's alleged sniper location.

Miles wrote: "The smoke is drifting NW to SE on the wind. Therefore, from Sam's perch atop the underpass

the smoke would seem to emanate from midget man's spot, when in fact it came from about

33 feet from the fence corner. Thus, when Sam ran to the end of the fence & then back to the

small trampled muddy area at the fence, Sam mistakenly assumed that this area was the origin

of the smoke & by further extrapolation the point of the firing of the shot & by further extrapolation

the position of the sniper.

A simple, honest, understandable error & a forgivable error.

M "

Miles went on to add: "Hudson's report that the smoke was 15 feet to the right of the tree is accounted for by the fact that the wind

was blowing from NW to SE; thus, toward Hudson with time elapse to consider"

Now if one goes back to this link http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0251&st=330 and the go to Miles response #336, they will see two images of the knoll where Miles placed red arrows showing people where he believed the smoke came from AT THE FENCE. Notice the slope of the knoll as it rises just to the base of the fence where is then flattens out slightly at the fence. The slope is the "INCLINE" and the area between the top of the incline to the tower was called the "HIGH GROUND" by Lee Bowers. Now listen to Bowers response very carefully as he answers Ball's question ...

Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?

Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.

Ball specifically asked about the 'HIGH SIDE --- HIGH GROUND' and that was when Bowers told him of the two men that Miles now wants everyone to believe was halfway down the steps east of the fence.

Then Ball went on to ask for more details about these men ...

Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately?

Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.

Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?

Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.

So Bowers time stamps when these men were standing 10 to 15 feet away from one another and it was as the caravan (motorcade) was coming towards them. Emmett Hudson testified under oath that he had been sitting on the steps right next to the man next to him and that they merely stood up as the motorcade arrived. Hudson didn't say that he immediately came down from the HIGH GROUND, nor did he say that about anyone coming to join him in that way.

Bowers told Mark Lane that in the immediate vicinity where these two men were standing that he saw a flash of light or smoke that immediately caught his eye. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw

I believe that Miles has avoided answering my question because he knows that he is on record as to saying where he believed that smoke came from and it was nowhere close to Hudson and company down on the steps. I believe Miles knows that the embankment stops at the south side of the fence and the High Ground starts at that point and runs across the RR yard to Bowers tower. I believe that Miles knows that when Bowers says he saw a flash of light or smoke, that Lee was talking about a possible muzzle flash that caught his eye and that Bowers probably did see the smoke right there where the embankment meets the High Ground which was at the fence.

I also asked Miles earlier about two trees that he was talking about in another thread, but relating them to a LOS Bowers would have had if he were talking about the two men being down on the steps. Miles avoided answering that question as well because from the Bowers tower field of view - one man would have filled the space between the two trees that Miles had alluded to. Miles used an illustration that EBC had created which left out the Hudson tree altogether. What a coincidence it was for that tree to be missing from that particular illustration because the distance between that tree and the next large tree over would have covered the area where Hat Man has been said to have stood, it would have covered the area where the smoke came through the trees, and it would have covered the spot where Holland took Lane to show him where he believed the sound of a shot and smoke had come from the fence.

That's my opinion based on the responses and then lack of responses I have gotten from Miles in his participation on this subject. For those researchers who were more interested in pictures of atomic blast ... Miles may have been somewhat helpful by supplying some, if only most were repeats.

Bill Miller

Old threads are notorious for making double talkers very uncomfortable.

Now about the flash of light or smoke Bowers spoke of. Bowers said this occurred at the time of the shots being fired. And since no motorcycle ever shot half way up the incline in the first place, then why are you even mentioning it??? Trying to make a case for why Bowers could have meant something else had something that didn't actually happen is somewhat of a joke! Bowers placed the men on the High Ground and the smoke/flash of light at the immediate vicinity on the embankment where these men were. That would be the same two men that Bowers told Ball under oath that was in a direct line between his tower and the mouth of the underpass. That's where Bowers saw the flash of light and/or smoke, which is exactly how it would have looked to me had someone been firing a gun at the fence with it aimed at the motorcade.

Now so we are clear here ... Bowers told Lane about a cop riding a motorcycle up the incline, which we know didn't really happen. Bowers said this was one of the first officers who came into the RR yard not counting the two already mentioned on the underpass. Then Bowers takes Lane back a bit to the time of the shooting when he speaks of seeing the flash of light and/or smoke. These are two totally different points in time that your document didn't make clear, but Lee Bowers does make it clear in his filmed interview. Go to the assassination films and watch how much times passes before anyone goes up the incline towards the RR yard and equate that to when the shots were fired.

In a response you (Miles) posted - you inserted a bond photo taken well after the shooting. Zapruder and Sitzman are inside the shelter - Moorman and Hill are sitting in the grass on the south pasture - Charles and little Joe Brehm have moved well off the curb and are also sitting in the grass on the south pasture - Hudson and the red shirted men are seated on the incline. No where by that time has a motorcycle been abandoned on the incline or even parked at the curbside. Can we say that by the time Bond took that photo that the moment of the shooting Bowers spoke of has long since past - I think we can!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0267&st=195

I personally believe you are too smart not to have known this and I am too smart to let you get away with it.

Now do you care to address those two trees you marked with red arrows from the Thompson photo or should I ask you to address them a few more times just to show your sincerity in wanting to get at the truth???

Here is a little refresher for you ...

QUOTE

EBC

Question:

Is Bowers talking about the "two trees" pointed to by the two red lines? Or, am I confused here? I realise other trees are candidates.

Thx

M

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

I complimented you and then you turn around and try to slam me with your remarks? This is educational forum and I’m only here to get educated and to point out things that were never discussed within the two years of my reading this forum.

To all the others who responded to this thread,

My family and friends who read this forum had a good chuckle when they read your accusations about me. According to you I’m a Fake, Mark Chapman look-a-like, xxxxx, Nutter and a set up man for a prank. Call me what you want… it doesn’t bother me!! Can we end this thread??

Miles,

Thanks for sticking up for me but I see no plaid shirts on the men on the steps… the men BEHIND the fence in front of JFK were the men that Bowers sees standing ten feet apart on one his first observations of the men before the assassination. The men on the steps at this point were sitting down before the assassination according to the Hudson testimony…. out of Bower’s view.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

I complimented you and then you turn around and try to slam me with your remarks? This is educational forum and I’m only here to get educated and to point out things that were never discussed within the two years of my reading this forum.

First reply to you ...

Don,

I would listen to Lee a little harder if I were you. The tramp you are talking about had on a darker shirt and he and Hudson's hats are no where close to being the same. Hudson was a grounds-keeper for the plaza - his hat was rounded on top and that's why it is him seen through the pyracantha bush. Towner three shows Hudson sitting on the ground and Emmett had bushy thick hair - the tramp did not!

If it was Groden who led you believe that it was anyone but Hudson seen through the pyracantha bush - you should know that Robert will be changing that claim and correcting it in his upcoming book.

Bill

Second reply to you ...

Don,

With all due respect ... you couldn't even notice that the tramp had on a dark shirt and Hudson had on a light one. This would go hand in hand with your comment that all the films and photos of the assassination were faked. You must really be new to all of this, so I will leave you with a few facts and then not waste more time on this.

Moorman's photo was filmed for TV not 35 minutes after the shooting and while it had never left Moorman's possession. That image was aired on TV not three hours after it was filmed. Mary's photo shows Emmett Hudson wearing a light colored shirt that matched his pants just as one would expect because Hudson was a grounds keeper for the plaza.

Hudson's bushy white hair comes from several sources - two of which I will give you. In Groden's book "The Killing of a President" there is an excellent enlargement of the Towner #3 photo and it shows Emmett sitting on the ground near the tree on the slope. Emmett's thick bushy white hair is pretty evident in that photo.

The other source for Emmett's bushy white hair came from his son (William Hudson) who I interviewed some years ago.

I hope the infromation has helped you for you have a long way to go to learn the facts about much of this stuff.

Good luck,

Bill

Then you come back and tell me that the tramp was wearing several layers of clothing. I found that comment to be amazing because I did not know that anyone had the ability to see through people's clothing, especially by looking at 2D film and photographed images. But I bit my tongue and let you go on.

Then you said something really off the wall when you remarked, "According to the films and photos of the man thought to be Hudson soon becomes the Red Shirt Man. EHH stopped Hudson from following behind Jack Lawrence who tried to run up the stairs after the shots were fired."

My third response to you ...

Don, I thought you said that Hudson wasn't even there on the steps ... now you are implying that the red shirted man stopped Hudson from following the guy who ran off. Did I get that right?

Bill

My fourth response to you after you have said that Hudson was the red shirted man on the lower step ...

And what I am telling you is that Emmett Hudson was 58 years old on the day of the assassination, stocky, and had gray bushy hair.

Bill

My fifth response to you ...

From the late Tim Carroll .......................

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search

Tim Carroll Mon Apr-10-06 10:16 PM

Member since May 22nd 2005

642 posts Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list

#45856, "RE: The Myth of the Mystery Man in the Pyracantha Bush"

In response to Reply # 0

I applaud Bill Miller's examination and explanation of the "mystery man." He convincingly explained an issue that had been existant for a good long while. But the conclusions about human nature attached to this examination are themselves suspect. For starters, Bob Groden participated with Bill in the process that brought the better understanding. That isn't exactly cognitive dissonance. Bill wrote:

"I close by saying that I am no genius for looking at Robert Groden's observation the way I did, but rather I was simply willing to let the chips fall where they may. One must ask themselves why the critics didn't do as I did? Four decades had elapsed without an honest detailed study done over this matter."

How long was Bill interested in the JFK assassination prior to the re-enactment of Pyracantha Man? Bill Miller's work often involves good scholarship buried within attitudinal bloviation. This was one time when a fairly conclusive answer was obtainable and obtained. But isn't that how Dale Myers feels about his work? Some expertise in photogrammerty and logistical common sense does not qualify one's psychobabble.

Tim

My sixth response to you ....

Sorry Bill, you are wrong... Hudson was 56 on the day of the assassination. The red shirt man does fit the description of a stocky 56-year-old man. The gray bushy hair is your own claim. The old man tramp also has gray hair as a disguise; maybe his hair was bushy underneath his hat. Anyways, I go by the facts, not hearsay from some person on a forum.

Don

Don,

I am not going to getting into an argument with you, especially when I can see that you have done nothing to know anything about Hudson and yet you want to pretend to have done so. In Groden's book on around pages 54 to 56 is an enlargement of Hudson sitting near the large tree on the incline. In another capture around those pages (see index) there is a crop of Hudson that shows his hair quite well. Hudson was also a grounds-keeper for Dealey Plaza and was so on the day of the assassination. If you bother to find out what kind of clothing the grounds-keepers wore, then you will be a step to being a bit smarter than what you are appearing to me now.

About Hudson's age ... This came up long ago and if I am off only two years, then so be it. But I remember someone showing that the age we all thought Hudson was - was not correct. It was just an error on one of the assassination documents (possibly the affidavit). I believe this came about as a result of my speaking with Emmett's son (William) The person who found the error was researcher Royce Beirma by doing a search under Hudson's SS #.

Now if you don't want to know any of this, then I can tell you that Emmett's sone (William Hudson) spoke to me at length about his father and what he looked like at the time of the assassination and the "bushy gray hair" was referenced to me by William (himself). Emmett's bushy gray hair he said can be seen in many of their family pictures. William referenced a newspaper his father had showing a enlarged crop of the limo as seen in Mary Moorman's photo and William said his dad used to point himself out to all his family and friends who's come by talking about the assassination. When or if I run into William again, I will tell him they might as well throw away all those family photos of their dad because Don says that's not Emmett ... that Emmett was the thin man with dark hair down further down on the steps. (sigh~) This is not uncommon knowledge, but to you it seems to have been unknown, which I do not understand why that is with you being so sure you have the right guy.

The last thing I will tell you is that you made a remark somewhere about the man seen in the pyracantha bush as having an ear that sticks out much like one of the tramps. I did a stabilized clip long ago showing that man's movement as he watched the limo pass below him and as his head turned to the right ... what you called an ear came off his head. Yes - you heard that right!!! What you called an ear was nothing more than a sunlit leaf off the pyracantha bush and as he turned his head the leaf separated from his head, thus that is just another error you have made in reaching your unfortunately erroneous conclusion. (END OF STORY!)

Bill Miller

Might be worth a read -

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search

Bill Miller Thu Aug-08-02 01:41 PM

Member since Jul 14th 2002

5951 posts Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list

#2326, "RE: Emmett Hudson - the real E.J.H."

In response to Reply # 8

Why anyone would think the guy in the red shirt is Hudson is a mystery to me. That man was neither standing next to a man on the steps, nor could have rose up together with a man next to him on the steps, nor is wearing the light colored clothing that Hudson, himself said he wore.

When I spoke to William Hudson (Emmett's sone) - he made it quite clear that his family was well aware of the Moorman photograph and which man was his dad. It sounded to me as if this topic was dicussed a good many times over the years amongst the family and personal friends. I should call William again one day to see if he'd be willing to tell me things his dad may have said in private that isn't in the official record.

Anyway - below is Hudson's Social Security number. He was born in 1905 and that would make him the 58 year old man that William said his dad was at the time of the assassination. Hudson died in June of 1991 and was born in the state of Arkansas. His middle name was Joseph ... Emmett Joseph Hudson.

I hope this has helped. There are other search engines one can use to find out about Hudson.

Social Security Death Index Search Results

June 2002 Update - 68,598,675 records - Updated Monthly The key to your research

Join Ancestry.com Today!

The most full-featured and up-to-date SSDI search engine on the internet

Field Value Records Results

Last Name HUDSON 36223 36223

First Name EMMETT 23118 15

Middle Name J Scanned

Results 1 thru 1 of 1

Name Birth Death Last Residence Last Benefit SSN Issued Tools

EMMETT J HUDSON 21 May 1905 23 Jun 1991 (not specified) (none specified) 432-20-8267 Arkansas SS-5 Letter

Add Post-em

Search Ancestry.com

My seventh response to you upon you saying that EHH was a helmeted man seen through the pyracantha bush despite no one on the steps not wearing a helmet.

Don,

All I can do is tell you the truth as to which man Emmett Hudson was in the assassination films and photographs. As far as your Internet search goes ... it was an Internet search that lead me to contacting his son, so you may need to hone your search skills. I believe it was on the Internet right here where the following was posted ...

"On 11/25/63, FBI agents Gaston C. Thompson and Jack B. Peden interviewed Hudson and dictated their report, file #DL 89-43, on 11/26/63. In that interview, Hudson called attention to the 11/24/63 edition of the Dallas Times Herald which contained a copy of the Moorman photo. Of the three men shown standing on the concrete stairs, Hudson "POINTED TO THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE" and said, "That is me in the light colored clothing and that is where I was standing at the time the President was shot.""

Which person Hudson was out of the three choices of those people who were on the steps has been known by seasoned researchers for 45 years now. And even if you don't think the FBI was smart enough to know who Hudson was out of the three choices and with Emmett right there in front of them pointing to his image, then I can damned sure be confident that Emmett's son (William) can be trusted as to which of those three men was his father. So I will leave you to your world where Hudson can be whomever you wish him to be. I'd even be willing to bet that the Hudson family would like for you to be their star witness so to make Emmett out to be the man who stood on the pedestal and filmed what has always been known as "The Zapruder Film" just so they can at least have a share of the money the Zapruder family got for that film.

Seriously now, all this makes me wonder now why you came onto this forum because if you are going to take a position like the one you have wrongly taken over which man on the steps Emmett Hudson was in lieu of what you have been shown so far, then an 'Education Forum' might not be your cup of tea.

Bill Miller

Don,

The next time you are showing your family and friends who are chuckling at what is being said by others pertaining to who you look like ... let them read this response as well so they can get a laugh out of trying to ponder what you have really been doing on the computer over the past two years because learning some commonly known basics as to who the assassination witnesses were has obviously not been one of them!

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

I complimented you and then you turn around and try to slam me with your remarks? This is educational forum and I’m only here to get educated and to point out things that were never discussed within the two years of my reading this forum.

The next time you are showing your family and friends who are chuckling at what is being said by others pertaining to who you look like ... let them read this response as well so they can get a laugh out of trying to ponder what you have really been doing on the computer over the past two years because learning some commonly known basics as to who the assassination witnesses were has obviously not been one of them!

Bill Miller

Sep 22 2007, 08:49 PM

"This thread has set a record for pointless futility and waste of time."

Jack White

Yesterday, 05:32 PM

Insight in to what? Colour Blindness? I have not contributed to this thread because of it's ridiculous claim from the word go, that the red shirted man was Hudson, but I can spot a nutter a mile away, In Don's case it was from 10, 000 miles blindfolded.

Duncan

Kathy,

Jack & Duncan are right.

Miller is being set up.

Don keeps fainting to set up sucker punches.

And Miller, unbelievably, keeps conveniently sticking out his chin for the inevitable round house. BAM !

Don knows that all he need do is deftly faint against Miller's giant vanity with a couple xxxxx jabs and then sit back watch Miller pile up huge quantities of self congratulatory & self justifying past posts, even posts from the Lancer forum.

Don knows what Miller will do.

So, Don is taunting Miller in order to provoke Miller to ridiculously strut & bluster because Don thinks that the spectacle of a grown man doing so is a huge laugh.

Well, I'm not laughing.

Neither is Duncan or Jack.

What puzzles me is why on earth doesn't Bill see what's going on!

:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Don is taunting Miller in order to provoke Miller to ridiculously strut & bluster because Don thinks that the spectacle of a grown man doing so is a huge laugh.

Well, I'm not laughing.

Neither is Duncan or Jack.

What puzzles me is why on earth doesn't Bill see what's going on!

Miles,

If Don is doing what you say, then he probably learned it from reading your past postings. Now believe it or not - I don't need you to concern yourself with anything Don and I have said in relation to this thread ... unless of course you have more information on Emmett Hudson that has not already been supplied here.

What I do need from you is to respond to the legitimate points that I put to you concerning the timing of the flash of light and/or smoke that Bowers told Lane about seeing during the shooting Vs. the timing of the alleged smoke coming from a motorcycle that never came up the incline. I believe I used a Bond photo as a point in time reference to show that no cops had even stopped and dismounted their bike below that knoll as of that point in time. It was you who referenced a comment Bowers made about a cycle on the incline as if that could have been the smoke Bowers was telling Lane about and I want to know now after what I posted if you acknowledge that these were two totally different points in time? If not, then why not???

I also want to know if you still stand by your post from the Duncan's shooter thread whereas you marked with red arrows where YOU believed the smoke to have come from that was reported by witnesses and captured on at least two assassination films?

These questions do not take a rocket scientist to answer and a simple 'yes' or 'no' would be a good start. If nothing else, then try and look at your addressing the JFK stuff as less time you will have worrying and posting about things that don't concern you and are irrelevant to the purpose by which this forum was designed to accomplish - to educate others.

Thanks and I look forward to your reply concerning my questions.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Don is taunting Miller in order to provoke Miller to ridiculously strut & bluster because Don thinks that the spectacle of a grown man doing so is a huge laugh.

Well, I'm not laughing.

Neither is Duncan or Jack.

What puzzles me is why on earth doesn't Bill see what's going on!

Miles,

If Don is doing what you say, then he probably learned it from reading your past postings...

I don't need you to concern yourself...

What I do need from you is to respond...

Thanks and I look forward to your reply concerning my questions.

Bill Miller

If Don is doing what you say, then he probably learned it from reading your past postings...

Do not attempt to associate Don with me.

I don't need you to concern yourself...

OK, I'll not do so.

What I do need from you is to respond...

This forum is not about your "needs" which as I've made clear Don considers to be your personal "needs" having to do with vanity & ego aggrandisement on your part.

Thanks and I look forward to your reply concerning my questions.

The case that Bowers said that he saw the two men in the area of the steps is now firmly made & cinched.

Further nit picking is a waste of time.

As Jack correctly puts it:

This thread has set a record for pointless futility and waste of time.

Who gives a ratsass about a plaid vs plain shirt. It does NOTHING

to advance the cause of truth. There are far more relevant issues

to be studied.Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I do need from you is to respond...

This forum is not about your "needs" which as I've made clear Don considers to be your personal "needs" having to do with vanity & ego aggrandisement on your part.

The members of this forum have a right to know the answers to my questions. You have no trouble in responding countless times with idiotic responses of A-bomb pictures - stupid smiley icon memos - and concerning yourself in others behavior ... so why not spend just a little time addressing the JFK assassination. This is a learning forum, so my questions will stand and you will be reminded of them each and every time the situation calls for it.

Thanks and I look forward to your reply concerning my questions.

The case that Bowers said that he saw the two men in the area of the steps is now firmly made & cinched.

Further nit picking is a waste of time.

Let me see if I got you right - You inferring that Bowers seeing a flash of light and/or smoke was the result of a motorcycle that in reality never went up an embankment and when I point out that Bowers gave that description in reference to the moment the shots were being fired and by the time the Bond photos were taken there had not been no officer as yet try to go up the knoll ..... you call my pointing this wide variance in time out to you - "NIT-PICKING".

Your response is no surprise to many of us. Rather than to address something that you know hurts your position - you only tell everyone that your position has already been cinched. Remember: You are the author of your own record as to how your peers will see you as a serious researcher or someone who was just here to screw around. There is nothing that anyone can say after reading your response that could make you look any worse than what you have done yourself.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I do need from you is to respond...

This forum is not about your "needs" which as I've made clear Don considers to be your personal "needs" having to do with vanity & ego aggrandisement on your part.

The members of this forum have a right to know the answers to my questions. You have no trouble in responding countless times with idiotic responses of A-bomb pictures - stupid smiley icon memos - and concerning yourself in others behavior ... so why not spend just a little time addressing the JFK assassination. This is a learning forum, so my questions will stand and you will be reminded of them each and every time the situation calls for it.

Thanks and I look forward to your reply concerning my questions.

The case that Bowers said that he saw the two men in the area of the steps is now firmly made & cinched.

Further nit picking is a waste of time.

Let me see if I got you right - You inferring that Bowers seeing a flash of light and/or smoke was the result of a motorcycle that in reality never went up an embankment and when I point out that Bowers gave that description in reference to the moment the shots were being fired and by the time the Bond photos were taken there had not been no officer as yet try to go up the knoll ..... you call my pointing this wide variance in time out to you - "NIT-PICKING".

Your response is no surprise to many of us. Rather than to address something that you know hurts your position - you only tell everyone that your position has already been cinched. Remember: You are the author of your own record as to how your peers will see you as a serious researcher or someone who was just here to screw around. There is nothing that anyone can say after reading your response that could make you look any worse than what you have done yourself.

Bill Miller

This is why I'm not going to waste any more time in responding to your wounded vanity.

You seem to be saying that it is MY fault that Bowers said that the two men were at the stairs & NOT behind the fence.

Do you have a personal problem?

Your response is no surprise to many of us. Rather than to address something that you know hurts your position

That's where you make a BIG error. It's not my "position" at all. The fact is that Bowers' newly revealed testimony demonstrates that he said that the two men he saw were at the stairs. I do not have a position on obvious fact. Apparently you do not like this fact & are determined to erase this fact by NIT-PICKING & QUIBBLING with me as a target.

Ain't gonna happen.

- you only tell everyone that your position

To repeat, this is NOT my "position."

has already been cinched. Remember: You are the author of your own record as to how your peers will see you as a serious researcher or someone who was just here to screw around. There is nothing that anyone can say after reading your response that could make you look any worse than what you have done yourself.

Are you serious?

If you are serious here, which you seem to be, then my only response must be simply:

LOL-2.gif

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's where you make a BIG error. It's not my "position" at all. The fact is that Bowers' newly revealed testimony demonstrates that he said that the two men he saw were at the stairs. I do not have a position on obvious fact. Apparently you do not like this fact & are determined to erase this fact by NIT-PICKING & QUIBBLING with me as a target.

Just to set the record straight ... De Antonio's interview with Bowers was not testimony. Had it been testimony, then the entire set of documents would have been produced so to see if other references were ever made during that interview that would help clear up that one statement that is open to interpretation. De Antonio, Lane, Harris and others would have been called to see if what Bowers had told them outside of the realm of that one statement was contradictory to the allegations being made. Then Bowers statements to Ball would be introduced as I have laid them out here. And all those stupid smiles, A-bomb photos, past comments you made about where the smoke came through the trees would also be taken into account. The terms used by Bowers as to what was "HIGH GROUND" and the "INCLINE" would be substantiated beyond any doubt.

Then of course you could present that one sentence and how Bowers couldn't see three men from 100 years away, but could somehow see a plaid design that isn't even visible on the Towner original slides. And that bit about Bowers seeing the smoke from a cycle that never actually went up the knoll would be welcomed. The timing of the Bond slides would come into play so to expose how little thought you have put into this claim. Yes, testimony is a grand thing ... a grand thing indeed! Then when you start whining about not wanting to answer the questions put forth to you - the court could order you to answer. Then the jury of your peers could then decide in their own minds just how reliable of a witnesses you have been. These are the things that evolve around "testimony".

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's where you make a BIG error. It's not my "position" at all. The fact is that Bowers' newly revealed testimony demonstrates that he said that the two men he saw were at the stairs. I do not have a position on obvious fact. Apparently you do not like this fact & are determined to erase this fact by NIT-PICKING & QUIBBLING with me as a target.

Just to set the record straight ...

Bill Miller

Ever wonder how Duncan spotted a hoax?

And just to set the record very straight:

fudge2-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

I complimented you and then you turn around and try to slam me with your remarks? This is educational forum and I’m only here to get educated and to point out things that were never discussed within the two years of my reading this forum.

To all the others who responded to this thread,

My family and friends who read this forum had a good chuckle when they read your accusations about me. According to you I’m a Fake, Mark Chapman look-a-like, xxxxx, Nutter and a set up man for a prank. Call me what you want… it doesn’t bother me!! Can we end this thread??

Miles,

Thanks for sticking up for me but I see no plaid shirts on the men on the steps… the men BEHIND the fence in front of JFK were the men that Bowers sees standing ten feet apart on one his first observations of the men before the assassination. The men on the steps at this point were sitting down before the assassination according to the Hudson testimony…. out of Bower’s view.

Don

******************************************************************

Bill,

According to you I’m a Fake, Mark Chapman look-a-like, xxxxx, Nutter and a set up man for a prank. Call me what you want… it doesn’t bother me!! Can we end this thread??

It wasn't according to Bill, it was according to me! You're an insufferable baiter and switcher, and if you think you're going to continue to carry on like some loose cannon around here, you've got another thing coming. We're ALL on to you and your happy group of trolling dwarfs. You and your cohorts can carry on with your insults and condescending diatribe, but after all the smoke has cleared [no pun intended] I'm sure the membership will be more than aware of your particular brand of hijinx. Sooner or later you're going to find yourselves, doing just that, talking to yourselves. Because, no one's going to want to stand around and listen to your half-baked attempts at pseudo logistics and skewed analogy. What a crock!

Can we end this thread? By all means.

Kathy, lock it down, right NOW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...