Bill Miller

duplicate post deleted

Herb, I was sorry that I couldn't post the image you wanted for I have not been in my office since early Spring. I did a search on Lancer and pulled some of the old images from there. Here you go and thanks - glad the analysis made sense to you for it does to me, too. It is so simple that I was surprised that so many researchers had missed the connection for so many years. Bill

duplicate post deleted

Alan doesn't get it because he doesn't want to. I asked Alan what the top step had to do with Gordon Arnold - I am still asking, but unless I have missed it ... no direct response has been forthcoming so far. In a message that Gary Mack sent Alan, it reads ...."You must read slowly for comprehension. Bill accurately related what I told him: Arnold said he was BETWEEN the wall and the fence, not BEHIND the wall. Standing west of the steps IS still between the wall and the fence." Alan seems to be playing a wording game whereas he wants to suggest that we are saying the steps themselves are behind the wall when we know it is the walkway that is behind the wall. What Alan is refusing to do is to understand that anyone looking down on the knoll could draw a line through the wall - through the steps and walkway - through the grass between the walkway and fence - and through the fence .... and each line will be west of the other. Once Alan accepts this, then maybe he will better understand what it is that we have been trying to tell him. As far as the BDM position - I respectively disagree with you that the BDM was up at the wall. Even the fence looks up near the wall, so the spacing of objects in those photos, especially as little more than silhouettes in deep shadow, is impossible to get exact merely by looking at either the Willis or Betzner photographs. The one photo that offers a better angle so the spacing can be better determined was Moorman's photograph. The reason for this is that the BDM and Gordon Arnold are one in the same person. Lets evaluate the evidence once more concerning Arnold. Gordon Arnold said that he had walked out to the spot he demonstrated in "TMWKK" and Gordon stood there and did a few test pans. Then Gordon saw the President come onto the street and started filming JFK until Kennedy got to the location of the kill shot whereas Gordon upon hearing a shot come past his ear - Arnold then hit the ground. (So far are you with me here?) Ok - Gordon never said that anyone walked out and stood in front of him blocking his view as JFK was coming down Elm Street. The Willis and Betzner photos show but one individual, thus if no one stood in front of Arnold as he filmed the President coming towards him, then the BDM must be Arnold. (Now I think we agree on this point because you have said the BDM was altered so to hide it from being known as a man in uniform ... such as Gordon Arnold was wearing) I believe it is the shade passing over Arnold and his possible moving (especially in the Willis photo) that causes him to blur and appear so dark. Alright - whether one wishes to think the BDM was painted over to hide Arnold's uniform is debatable and is unimportant - it is Moorman's photograph taken from more of a side view to the wall that told you, Mack, Groden, myself, and anyone else going to the plaza to align the stand-ins to match Moorman's photograph that Arnold was NOT up near the wall, but rather just west of the walkway in the grass. Now allow me to drawn attention to the sunspot seen on Arnold's right shoulder and chest. That sunspot is caused by sunlight shining through a bare spot in the tree foliage between he and the sun. To take a step in either direction would cause one to move out of that sunspot. (Follow me so far?) In the Betzner photo, which is better than the Willis photo for seeing the BDM IMO, there is a sunspot on the BDM's right shoulder and chest just like it is seen in Moorman's photograph. So we have Arnold who doesn't say that anyone stood in front of him blocking his view of the approaching President and we have a figure in the Betzner and Moorman photographs that has the same sunspot coming through the foliage and shining down on his right shoulder and chest. It is these pieces of evidence that tells me that the BDM is not up at the wall as some have believed merely by looking at a 2D photograph taken from a frontal view. Bill

Gary Mack tells me .... "The image Groden saw was a re-creation film shot later that month or year. Larry Howard used the same film to prove Ed was there, but it was the re-creation film. I have the film in some old documentary, probably a CBS program." Bill Miller

Hold that thought. Not sure why threads are run up in space by replies that have little to do with posting evidence, but upon phoning Groden to find out the source where he saw someone on Stemmons - he said that he cannot recall it now. I can say without a doubt that Robert had told me that you could see Hoffman in one of the assassination images and by that I mean Robert said someone could be seen at that location. Unfortunately, Robert's memory wasn't working today or he had said something in the past which he no longer feels is supported which is not the first time that has happened. Bill Miller

Try emailing Groden and asking him where it was that he saw Hoffman on Stemmons Freeway. It has been a long time since, but I recall Robert saying that he saw someone in one of the assassination images who was at the location Hoffman said he was. RobertG1@airmail.net Bill Miller

Not sure what you mean, but the man who Weitzman encountered who told him about seeing something through the trees being tossed has everything to do with it. Also, thanks for looking in Lane's book, but the report I read had Weitzman telling of this witness telling him about the area where the steam pipe was as being where he seen something being tossed following the shooting. It's unfortunate that when I searched Lancer's archives that so many images were missing for I was certain that I scanned that report. I will look for it some more online and through contacts as time allows. Bill Miller

If someone wants to know anything about those photos, then ask Jack or email Gary Mack for if anyone knows the specifics - it would most likely be them. As for where Hoffman was positioned .... did he not say that the President passed below him as he came out from under the overpass and that is when he saw the President's head wound ... I think it was. Bill Miller

I am in the mountains of British Columbia where I spend the majority of the year, thus I am not in reach of the 26 volumes. I have contacted several other researchers who might be able to help, but two are out of town - one didn't know - and the other said he'd look when he had free time. This subject is old news and Weitzman's report had been discussed on Lancer long ago. I will try and do a search in more detail as time allows it. Does anyone by chance have Mark Lanes book called "Rush to Judgment" because in the index it should have Weitzman's name and Lane was pretty good at referencing the 26 volumes when necessary. Possibly someone can assist us here? Bill

There was no attack on anyone here, but rather a statement of fact pertaining to past post that are archived in this thread, as well as other threads. Let me give but just one example of this .... Someone constantly posting that Holland left for the RR yard immediately after the President passed through the Underpass when the photographic record shows otherwise, was an analysis based on a continuation of misstating the facts for reference to Holland in the assassination images had been presented over and over again. So yes, if an analysis was forthcoming that didn't repeat the same old misinformation - I for one would consider that startling. If the forum rules need to be amended so to cover such an opinion not being given, then so be it. I have been most careful in the wording of my responses and have refrained from saying what I honestly thought in its totality. I hope that when Miles finds time to actually do it - I will look forward to reading his additional analysis that he told Jack he would deliver. Bill Miller

Call it what you will, but I see little difference in someone saying they don't like anyone they have never met - they don't care for the taste of something they have never eaten - they think somewhere is a terrible place to be when they have never been there - or they voice an opinion about something they never studied. This was the case concerning Ed's book and the things that was being said about him in error. Such practices and the standards they suggest can be left up to each person who reads these threads - I have my own opinion. Bill Miller

In a way you make a valid point, Duke. When a select few started out critiquing Ed Hoffman's story and it was soon discovered that some of them had not even read Ed's book .... that told everyone what kind of researchers they were - the level of ability they were incapable of so to do even the simplest requirements so to offer a valid critique of the case - and it certainly reflected their motivation IMO. It seems to me that anyone only acknowledging these points is doing nothing more than drawing attention to the record. Bill

duplicate post removed

Would not Northwest be more accurate when going from where Towner was standing to the walkway ... I think so. It might be helpful for you to go back and systematically lay out your position. Explain why the focus on the 'top step'. When looking down from above - the walkway leads to the steps leading down to the street. The walkway is between the concrete wall and the fence. From above - someone would be correct in saying that if they were just off the walkway in the grass, then the walkway and steps would be east of their position. While it can be fun watching someone like yourself offer your interpretation of the layout of the knoll ... one must also consider if what has described could be accurate from their point of view. Trying to make a case by picking flea dung out of pepper seems a bit ridiculous to me. How is being on the top step relevant to Arnold and the BDM? The view in the image above looks to the west. Anyone standing in the grass west of the walkway would be correct in saying that the walkway/steps are east of their location. If one separates the walkway from the steps, then saying the steps are Southest of the Arnold location would also be correct. So whether Arnold said the steps were east of him or even southeast of him - either one would be correct in light of Arnold's interpretation of the layout of the knoll. I find that trying to solve a mystery by way of creating another mystery that really doesn't exist to be somewhat of a waste of time. Arnold/BDM was behind the wall. The walkway and fence are also behind the wall. Such a statement is an accurate one to make. Arnold never said that he was standing up against the wall and that is where he would need to be to be in error to say the steps were east of his position. Try doing a search on Lancer for I am certain that the Golz articles were posted there when you debated this nonsense in the past. I have read the articles and spoken to Golz personally on this matter on more than one occasion. It appears that to date you didn't save the articles when posted, nor have you spoken to Earl Golz, thus you remain confused. Bill

Miles, Your analysis are never startling. However, if you ever offered an analysis that wasn't full of misstatements and factual errors, then that would definitely be classified as startling IMO. Bill

Ed's book has been common knowledge to any researcher who bothered to inquire as to what information is out there concerning Hoffman. Peter said something that caused me to reflect on how some of you came out critiquing Ed on erroneous information and yet after you became more educated on the facts - your conclusions didn't change in the slightest. IMO it is Ed who seems more credible than the responses that a few have you have given. For instance, I listened to Miles go on and on as to how no one could have walked the fence line because Holland said the lot was a sea of cars and that he had to hop bumpers as he made his way across the RR yard. Miles left out the fact that Holland took a route that took him across the lot and to the back of the colonnade. Holland went on to say that he walked up and down the fence looking for tracks and shell casings. Arnold said that he walked down the fence line just prior to the President's arrival, and Hoffman tells of seeing someone walk the fence line. You guys were so unaware of the other supporting evidence that it makes your desire to be thorough and accurate to be non-existent as I re-examine how this topic unfolded. Bill Miller

So it must be your position that Ed possibly sought out the authorities after the assassination while not ever being out on the freeway as he had claimed. It would seem like human nature to be in a state of shock over what had happened in Dallas, as most of the country was, thus I cannot see someone quickly thinking that here is an opportunity to claim to have witnessed something that they would know not to be true. However, feel free to make me aware ... just like those who were made aware of Ed's book after those same people were already going around pretending to be authorities on Ed Hoffman. Bill Miller

Jack - you are dealing with people who didn't even so much as read Hoffman's book before critiquing his observations - "cute" is all they have left. Bill

Having been accused of using a wrong line of sight in the past - why do it again? Maybe the rest of your reply will offer a clue .................. Doesn't seem like you take the concept of this being an "education forum" very seriously. One must ask themselves what goal you have in mind to offer such ridiculous answers instead of just answering Jack's questions. Bill Miller

Do any of you know if the object in question is even in the same RR yard ? Bill Miller

If one says he saw the car slow down and almost come to a stop - does that not mean that he saw the car coming down Elm Street at that point? Bill Mr. Brown. After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped. Mr. Ball. Did it come to a complete stop? Mr. Brown. That, I couldn't swear to. Mr. Ball. It appeared to be slowed down some? Mr. Brown. Yes; slowed down.

The steps and the walkway are between the wall and the fence ... not sure about your question? The Golz article did mention Arnold saying that he was standing on a mound of dirt. I cannot see standing on the hillside as meaning the same thing. Bill

I found through every way that I could think of to test it over it being Arnold - that Jack's interpretation was dead right. The same type a clothing Arnold would have worn, the same style of hat Arnold would have worn, holding something dark up in front of the head as Gordon would have done had he been filming the President as he said he did. The Betzner BDM/Arnold overlays told me that it was the same individual and that he had turned his upper body towards the sun as the President approached, which is just what Arnold did when he said he tracked the President up to the point a shot came past his head. With no one else claiming to have been where Gordon said he was ... and with no one saying they saw Gordon somewhere else when JFK was shot ... and with Gordon able to give details that were not known to exist in the photographical record at the time that only a true witness would know about, I feel safe saying Jack interpreted the image correctly. I am thinking that MIT did as well. Then there was the comparing Jack's interpretation to a real soldier dressed as Gordon Arnold would have been. It was all these things combined that sold me on Jack's interpretation. Bill

Testimony of Patrolman Earle V. Brown, stationed atop the railroad overpass above Stemmons Freeway: Mr. Ball. On November 22, 1964, were you assigned to a certain post on duty? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Mr. Ball. Where? Mr. Brown. That would be the railroad overpass over Stemmons Expressway service road. ... It's over Stemmons Expressway; in other words, they make that turn off Elm and go up. ...Where I was was the railroad overpass. Mr. BALL. The railroad overpass itself? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. How far were you from the place where the continuation of Elm goes under the overpass? Mr. BROWN. Oh, approximately 100 yards. ... Mr. Ball. Did you have the railroad yards in sight? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir: ... Mr. Ball. Did you see any people over in the railroad yards? Mr. Brown. Not that I recall; now they were moving trains in and out. Mr. Ball. But you did not see people standing? Mr. Brown. No, sir; sure didn't. Mr. Ball. Was there any obstruction of your vision to the railroad yards? Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Ball. What? Mr. Brown. Not the direction of the railroad yard, but at ground level we didn't have very good view. Mr. Lomax and I remarked that we didn't have a very good view. Mr. Ball. Was that because of the moving trains? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Did you see the President's motorcade come on to Houston Street from Elm; were you able to see that? ... Mr. Brown. No, sir; actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped. Mr. Ball. Where? Mr. Brown. After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped. Mr. Ball. Did it come to a complete stop? Mr. Brown. That, I couldn't swear to. Mr. Ball. It appeared to be slowed down some? Mr. Brown. Yes; slowed down. ... Mr. Ball. Did you search any part of the area [after the shooting]? Mr. Brown. We were instructed to stay at our posts, which we did, and later we got instructions to check the area around the Depository, Book Depository Building, and to obtain the license numbers of all those cars parked around there, which we did. Mr. Ball. Where were any cars parked? Mr. Brown. Well, there's a parking lot around that building and there was several cars parked all around that building. Mr. Ball. You took the license numbers? Mr. Brown. Yes; in fact, I think there must have been four or five officers taking license numbers. I've left in the part about the limo slowing/stopping mainly to illustrate the extent of the view from where Officer Brown and his partner James Lomax were on the bridge, and the last part about the license plate numbers just because it's interesting. There is at least one other person who'd also testified to trains moving about in the railroad yards (I'll post that once I find it), but once again, nobody described one going over the TU except for Officer White. Each reference seemed to me to be talking about the trains BEFORE JFK came into Dealey Plaza. The trains "WERE" moving and then talking about seeing the motorcade coming after the fact may be the key to understanding what has been said. Bill