Bill Miller

Crop, Willis6, taken from a 2400x2400dpi scan of the photos sold by Willis. I see the branch of a tree. - lee Lee, The tree branch is lighter than the background. If it is anyone that Duncan see's - it is probably one of these guys from Towner #3 .... Bill

The person called "The Black Dog Man" (BDM) is also seen in the Betzner photo. Gordon Arnold said he was filming as the President was coming towards, thus he was already in position. There is only one person seen in the Betzner and Willis photos at the BDM location, thus it must be the same figure seen in Moorman's photo. From that distance (the Betzner and Willis locations to the walkway above the knoll) and in shadow - Arnold would look dark from that distance. The sunspot on Arnold and BDM's right shoulder and torso tend to support them being one in the same person IMO. Bill

I do not think it is Ed's story that raises such high emotions, but rather the same people constantly misstating it that gets under peoples skin. If something someone said is found to have been in error, then their information was not "fact". If a person who relied on something that was found not to be factual, then that person's opinion must also be wrong and should be reassessed based on the established fact. I thought Ken was quite clear on this. Going back to what Ken said ... why continue pushing what has been shown to be faulty logic? Someone beside Ed did see something tossed near the steam pipe and it is mentioned in Weitzman's report. Miles apparently was not even aware of the report, but he has since been made aware of it and yet he continues to ask "why did not anyone but Ed Hoffman see anything Ed describes?" Maybe a better question would be what motive would one have for continually ignoring the evidence presented to them??? This point that Miles makes might be argued by using a very poor copy of the Bell Film from Groden's collection, but the 6th Floor Museum who has the original film which is much cleaner and sharper does not show the men in question looking at the steam pipe. So what do we do - go by what the clear film shows or prefer to keep referring to the poor quality fuzzy film so one can keep saying that these men are looking at a steam pipe? I prefer to go with what the clearest images show so to be as accurate as possible with my interpretations, but thats just me. What was these assertions based on? It took Lane and Holland not 20 seconds to casually and slowly walk from the steam pipe to a position where they were straight out from where the smoke was seen. The question is - would a faster walk even cut the time span down even more ... I think so! Not knowing what kind of gun we are talking about makes it difficult to say how long it would take to break it down. I have a gun that I can break down in a matter of a few seconds. And if someone stopped near the RR box, then if the box was between him and the men on the underpasspass (some with their backs to the RR boxes) - how could they see a gun being taken apart ... especially if they are still watching the confusion going on below in the plaza? Maybe this time I will take Miles advice and say that his logic seems to be wrong. Miles, is there any mention that he wasn't carrying a tool box or bag, which the term "bag" is what I thought that Ed used??? And if you admit that this man could have been anyone, then I guess that it could have been the man Ed described and was willing to take a lie detector test over to validate the veracity of his observations. Bill Miller

I'd email Gary Mack and ask him if this is correct, but I think the guy in the box is Hester as he got up and went to the colonnade windows as seen in the Wiegman film. The dark spot seen over Mrs. Hester ... I suspect that to just be a shadow that doesn't seem to be moving, thus I think this particular Gif is not in sync with the other two. Bill

I think Charles Hester has been dead for a long time and that might explain why it has been so hard to find him. Bill

Really, John? I could create an entire thread on responses that were not designed to debate at all, but rather to disrupt by implying that someone like myself is a communist, a CIA agent, someone bidding for work at the 6th Floor Museum, and the list goes on and on .... while each time never addressing the JFK related points that I made about the photographic record. Was that kind of nonsense was allowed to go on in the name of "rational and logical debate"? The 'not swearing rule' is a good thing if actually enforced, but not to the extent of being ridiculous. Even in this thread there are words seen here that are very vulgar and replacing a couple of letters here and there with an "x" or some other symbol doesn't stop the viewer from knowing exactly what was said. Yet when a three letter word in which the definition was also given so not to be misconstrued by anyone was posted - so much out of nothing was made of it. Even the word "hell" can be seen as a curse word when used a certain way. Where does it all end? Bill

Antti, I appreciate the position you are in, but one can say someone is making a "donkey" out of themselves and you'd be OK with that - yet the word I used means the exact same thing in accordance with the dictionary. So the problem doesn't seem to lay with a particular word, but rather with those who wish to interpret it in any way they wish to. Depending on the culture - a harmless word in one culture can be a direct insult to someone in another. While I agree with not wanting the forum to become riddled with vulgar language .... you are going to run into all kinds of headaches if you go overboard with trying to over censor peoples post. Bill

Who decides what is swearing and what is not? Even when the meaning is presented with the term posted .... it matters little for the word seems to be defined not by the dictionary, but rather by people who make it out to mean what ever they wish it to be. The whole thing has gotten ridiculous. Bill Miller

I have a question: Do you believe that Jack and Gary's Badge Man work shows someone behind the wall that appears to be wearing some sort of uniform? Bill

I believe that most researchers would disagree with you on which sniper Bowers saw. In fact, as I said before - the Badge Man, nor the RR man figure doesn't match the description of clothing that Bowers gave .... I look forward to your and Duncan's thoughts on that as well. It is also worth noting that Bowers didn't mention seeing a floating cop torso aiming a rifle at the President, so do you consider that to be another alleged sniper that Bowers didn't see or are you just limited to using such logic only when it applies to Hoffman .... I also look forward to your thoughts on that point, too. Bill Miller

Duncan, If you and Miles spent half as much time researching the case instead of whining so much ... you'd not be making so many mistakes. By the way, here is what I said to Miles when using the word "XXX" ........... "Miles, you are making XX XXX XXX of yourself for nothing." Now here is the dictionary meaning .... Now does any of those definitions seem like they might come into play concerning the post Miles is making? Would not someone who misstates the record after it has been established that he is in fact mistaken on some things somewhat of a "silly" person? I think so! Really? What part was accurate ... the stuff he misstated before he even bothered to read Hoffman's book - the fact that he gave a time line of 15 seconds for Bell's pan back to the underpass because didn't know Bell had turned his camera off - or how about the part where he believed Holland went shaggin' butt off the underpass immediately after the shooting when Tom Dillard took a photo almost one minute after the fatal shot to JFK and that photo clearly shows Holland still at his post on the underpass??? Of course someone like yourself wouldn't know these things either if you haven't bothered to research them thoroughly. There is a way to time stamp the photographical record, but one must first know it so to cross reference it. And yes, let everyone go to Lancer and read the comment you made to Debra Conway ... it won't take a genius to see why she sent you packing ... and to be honest - she would boot me or anyone else who said what you did. I even think she had tried to reason with you first of all, but you felt it necessary to keep saying things that any respectful woman would not put up with. But blame it on someone else if it makes you feel better ... it only makes you look bad. Bill

Additional information requested .... Gary Mack answered me back with the following .... "You asked me to review the Bell film for certain information. His first post-assassination sequence shows JFK in the underpass and his SS car just entering the shadow. Since it took 9 seconds for JFK to reach the underpass, and it only takes five seconds or less to drive through it, I would estimate the time to be +15 seconds at the most. Using a frame blowup off the original film, I can see two men on the north end of the underpass near the fence. One is wearing a white shirt and the other, standing immediately to his left, is wearing a yellow shirt. Both men appear to be facing to the west at that moment. As I mentioned on the phone, Dillard 3, shot from Elm & Houston from camera car 3 and looking toward the underpass, shows Sam Holland still on top of the underpass over the south lane. The timing of that picture has long been established as about 40 seconds or more after Z313. "

Miles, you are making an XXX out of yourself for nothing. Check with Groden, Mack, or anyone else who actually has studied these films. Check the timing of the camera cars finally making it passed the knoll. You may recall that the motorcade had stopped momentarily. And just so you know ... you have used the term "eons of time" which can be construed to mean countless various periods of time. This part of the problem with you and your thinking Holland immediately ran off the underpass. Go to the photographical record and learn it - its time sequence - and then come back and intelligently debate the evidence if you like, but stop misstating the evidence when it is obvious that you have not bothered to check out any of the information being offered to you. This is supposed to be an "Education Forum" - not the Miles version of the "Gong Show". Sooner or later one of the administrators is going to see what you are doing and call you on it. Maybe Andy and John can open up a forum debate where no one needs to have the facts straight and can purposely just say anything regardless of its accuracy, but I don't think that is acceptable here. Bill Miller

Miles writes; "Duncan, if you're not careful, these deceitful fudge artists will traduce you & an innocent public in the best traditions of the Warren Commission." Once again I must ask if this is a confession on YOUR part??? Let us examine the facts to see who is fudging what! OK Miles, do you remember the above information being previously posted? I mentioned that Bell had turned his camera off and that by the time he panned back to the underpass -the better part of a minute had elapsed. You have now again posted that 15 seconds has elapsed, which by the way is the continued time count that you got off the player ... you failed to consider the point I made about Bell having turned his camera off and starting it again during those 15 seconds. This is what you wrote; "But! If you closely examine the Bell film frame by frame you will find that the Bell film captures these two men at that position before the limo enters the shadow cast on to Elm by the triple underpass, which shadow was lying out into Elm considerably east of the underpass. These men were at their position BEFORE the limo entered the mouth of the underpass. Later, in under 15 seconds of passed time after the time point of the limo being under the the underpass going through it, the same men are captured by the Bell film looking in the direction of the steam pipe & the switch box." Now having pointed your error out once again ... are you going to stop posting information that has been repeatedly shown to be in error? Would this continuation on your part be the "FUDGING" that you warned Duncan to be on the watch out for! Miles, this is where your taking shortcuts and not actually studying the available evidence ends up making you look like you really do not know much about the things you are talking about. You asked me how I know that Holland is still on the underpass and I am going to tell you ... Holland is the guy in the hat, white shirt and tie seen on the underpass in the Altgens 7 photo, and in Dillard #3 which was taken about one minute after the shooting took place. This is how I know that Sam used a figure of speech to say that he immediately took off for the RR yard. So it isn't just me believing something that I have read, but believing something that I have read in conjunction to the other evidence that I have seen. So if you are going to keep saying how people following the footsteps of the WC, then you might start actually doing a little thorough research of your own so to not set a bad example for all those innocents that might be taken in by the errors you continually make. See Tom Dillard's third photo ... do I need to say more??? Miles, is it not a little self serving for you to tell this forum that the men are looking in the direction of the RR box? Let us examine your powers of observation in this instance. You have two red lines pointing to where you see someone. The fact is that the eastmost line is going to no one. The two men are side by side. I have asked Gary Mack to pull out the best Bell print, which exceeds the muddy print Groden used on his DVD, and to send me something in writing to what he saw. So if I am right, then you are telling us that you not only see someone who in reality is not even there, but you can tell from that deplorable copy print which way they are looking. I find that a bit ridiculous if that ends up being the case. I am going to respond to the above quote by pasting something Ken had written on the Hoffman thread ... something that YOU didn't bother acknowledging one way or another. Ken had this to say about Foster; "There is corroboration for some of what Ed Hoffman saw. But, to my knowledge, you and Miles haven’t mentioned it. So here it is. Dallas Police Officer J. W. Foster, who stood on the triple underpass near Sam Holland and others, said that after the shooting he moved to “the end of the viaduct” (where the triple underpass meets the picket fence) at which point somebody told him that some man had run up the railroad tracks from that location. That’s just what Ed had said. After the shots, his “railroad man” had run up the railroad tracks from the area of the switch box which is at the very same location where Foster’s man had run from, i.e. where the triple underpass meets the picket fence." Do you care to now finally address the man who Foster saw heading out across the RR yard in the direction that Ed also claimed to have witnessed someone going? How about telling us how it is that no one else mentioned seeing this guy but Foster and Ed Hoffman ... could it be that people were still watching the confusion within the street below? Bill Miller

I am not sure what a "two copy version of the WC" is ... can you explain what you meant by that ... if you even know? As far as your cartoons - I agree that they are impressions, but the word "False" should come before the word "impressions". They also cannot be representations or reconstructions IMO if the data within them is not correct so to match the real world. EBC, I would be happy to explain my post if you will be so kind as to cite exactly what was said. My recollection was that I responded to someone else who first linked Dale's website. In fact, I think it was post number 433 where I merely quoted Duncan where he used that link. If you go back to post number 405 - you will see that it was Miles who posted the link to Myers site when referring to Badge Man and what Bowers saw. I think I addressed that issue by pointing out that the Badge Man image doesn't show but a man in a possible police uniform and what looks to be a RR worker close by ... no man in a plaid coat seen anywhere. Your ability to jump to conclusions seems to get the best of you at times. I have only met Dale Myers one time and I don't agree with his opinions and I have said that his animation is not to scale in a way that overlays onto the actual Zframes.... if that makes him "my friend" by your definition of the word, then I can see why you have such a difficult time with witnesses statements and the evidence of this case. Keep the lessons coming ... I am always glad to learn something new! Bill Miller

Jack is exactly right! The same could be said about someone showing a fake SS Badge in the RR yard ... Officer Smith thought nothing of it at the time. He even excused the dirty hands the guy had because he was so pressed for time. Arnold was met by the tree above the knoll by two people wearing what Gordon said were police uniforms. Towner's enlarged photo in Groden's book shows two people in dark clothing exactly where Arnold would have been, but no one else mentioned seeing these guys talking to the serviceman with the camera - WHY - because it would not appear out of the ordinary for cops to be asking a witness if they saw or heard anything. In fact, if Towner's photo had not have captured these figures near the tree above the knoll - no one would have even known they were there. The same photo shows a fellow who looks to be dressed like a custodian (see Bowers testimony) and this man is seen near the shelter doorway looking over the fence and into the RR yard and no one claimed to have seen him either, but it happened and all for the reasons that Jack gave. Bill

Duncan, I take it that you do not bother reading the postings of others because you are so busy with your own research. I will offer this piece of information once again so you don't keep making the same errors over and over again ... of course unless that is what you prefer to do. Mark Bell filmed the limo going into the overpass and then he swings his camera back to the pedestal and then again we see the underpass. What most people will not know is that Bell turned his camera off for a short period before filming the underpass. The traffic seen in the street offers a time-line. I think you will find that the Bell film shows that at least a minute had expired before Bell panned back to the underpass and Holland and the rest are still there. Now unless you figure that someone had altered the Bell film to put Holland back on the underpass - it is wrong for you to pretend that Holland immediately ran into the RR yard. In fact, somewhere I have read that Holland had said that it took him several minutes to get back behind the fence where the shot was heard. Anyway, I wanted to share the information about the Bell film so you can apply it to your future post. Bill

I am citing from memory, but the photo of the RR yard from the air on the afternoon of the assassination is in Trask book "Pictures of the Pain". Look around page 349, 350, etc,.

If you agree that the actual photos offer the more precise view over mere cartoon impressions that do not replicate the plaza to the smallest detail, then what was this post all about ... ? "Here are a few images of the view Bowers might have had of the Picket fence area from his elevated vantage point. I think you'll agree they are a vast improvement (and still accurate!) on the feeble efforts posted by Miller."

I think that you may be missing an interesting point ... Did not Bowers say that the two men were between he and the mouth of the triple underpass - keeping in mind that he didn't say whether that was the mouth of Commerce, Main, or Elm Street, but rest assured that the Badge Man location is not in line with the underpass in any - way - shape - or form. Bill 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. 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.

Would not the photos taken from the RR tower room where Bowers was positioned be the best images for viewing what Bowers could and could not see? I think they are found in the 26 volumes of the WCR. For instance, Moorman's photo shows a backdrop of tree foliage behind the Badge Man. Bowers had an elevated view, thus it is very possible that he couldn't see anyone at the Badge Man location even if he wanted to. And who was it the other day who posted that the men Bowers saw was probably Hudson and another guy standing down on the steps? Hmmmmnn! Now Lane is supposed to have mislead us on where Bowers was talking about. The reason Lane even mentioned Bowers was because Lee had told him about the puff of smoke/or flash of light that occurred out in front of him. In fact, the guy in the plaid coat remained in sight and it was Joe Marshall Smith who met this guy with the fake SS badge after the shooting. And for those who wish to think Bowers saw a plaid coated man at the Badge Man location - Badge Man, nor the RR worker seen in Moorman's photo are wearing plaid coats, thus they cannot be the people Bowers was talking about. Bill Miller

Mark Lane marked the spot Bowers told him where the guy was where the flash of light or smoke came from. (see link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw...ted&search=

Duncan, you guys seem to like to blame your short comings on others much of the time. If it was up to me - I'd have Groden, Mack, or Thompson get you the images you want so to prove my point once and for all. The problem as I see it is that you guys have come out making outlandish claims before first seeking the data needed to do so and this is what would make Groden feel like you are not a valid serious researcher. The truth is that even when I have seen their images - I don't even ask for copies for myself. The reason for this is because I have now looked an image over and seen what I wanted to know, so I didn't need to request copies for myself. Bill

Duncan, You just don't show good sense some of the time. I have given you sources so to view the best images possible and yet you can only fall back on the 'Why don't I get them for you' line. You have called the area between the fence and the tree foliage a type of 'wash-out'. The original Moorman photo does not show this to be true, nor do the good prints made from the Moorman's photo. You have relied on older prints that are not as sharp and have been lightened from their original state. A B&W photo has limited color tones ... even Jackie's pink jacket is the same color tone as the sky seen through the trees. I took the liberty to call Gary Mack at the Museum today and he tells me that he had told you that the prints he had viewed clearly show the sky between the top of the fence and the bottom of the tree foliage. Gary also told me that it was the early researchers who got the best prints. Names like Groden, Weisberg, and Thompson are among them. "Six Seconds in Dallas" has Josiah's study on the Hat Man image for those who want to know more about it. Josiah would also be a good source for obtaining a copy print. As far as my going to the Museum to view assassination images - I have explained in the past how it was done and what others need to do to do the same. Bill

You can speak for many members who do not post ... how is that possible??? Careful Miles ... you would not want me to start comparing the quality of my post with yours. In fact, about the only post you have made concerning the actual murder of JFK when it comes to threads I participated in came before you admitted that you hadn't even read Hoffman's book and the one about Duncan's alleged floating Cop assassin was ridiculous on many levels. I am pretty sure that most of you had never even knew how soon after the assassination that Mary's photo had been filmed. I asked if any of you have bothered going into the Museum and asked to see the images there so to validate your interpretations using inferior images and not one person said they have done so. I can tell you that I have, but then I have a real interest in knowing as much about the photographic record. After all, how else can one intelligently discuss an image if he or she doesn't know the first thing about its history or where to see the clearest reproductions, if not the original itself. You remind me of someone who once told me they didn't buy into what was written in the Bible and how the da vinci code convinced them of this. When asked if they have even read the Bible - they answered, "No". So let me see if I have this correct ... you (Miles) seem to have time to research the forum for what ever you can find concerning what can be construed as a personal attack, but no time to actually learn the case so to intelligently address the evidence before you - did I get that right? Let's see if I can make a comparison and you tell me how you are different. Plumlee made a claim that he was on the south side of the plaza following the shooting. The location he gave would have been visible in the Cancellare photo, yet I could not find him anywhere within that photograph, so I called him on it. I believe this is what was referred to by "my attack" on this poor individual. You on the other hand had never read Hoffman's book so to even have the facts straight before you tried making Ed out to be lying about what he said he had witnessed, yet you don't seem to view that as an attack. Do you care to explain the difference to the forum so we can all understand where you are coming from ... even though I already know the answer to that. Bill Miller