Bill Miller

I believe Holland said that he went across the RR yard to the back of the colonnade by way of the front of the cars and then came back to the point where he thought he heard the shots. The time allowance he gave was 3 to 4 minutes. Didn't someone post the other day where Holland said he didn't leave the underpass for a couple of minutes or words to that effect? I still refer to the Mark Bell film. I think if one looked at Lane's interview of Holland - they will see that it takes Holland and Lane 27 seconds to slowly walk from the steam pipe to the point where they turned at a right angle to go up to the wooden fence. So is there any reason to say that an assassin would take 2 to 2.5 times longer to walk the fence than it did Holland to casually walk it??? These are not facts, but just your imagination playing out a fantasy. I again will say that the Hat Man is visible in the Groden enlargement in "The Killing of a President". That Thompson went to the plaza and could not see anything from Moorman's location that matched the fedora shape at the fence. That this spot was wear the smoke came through the trees and from where Bowers reported a man standing. The accoustics test also support this location as having a gunshot fired from it. Midget or giant - one man - one shot - one puff of smoke - shae seen in Moorman's photo is missing when Thompson goes to the plaza to see if it is still there. It might also be worth pointing out once again that when looking up hill and depending how far back from the fence one is - a 6' man can only have the top of his head seen over the fence from where Mary stood. In fact, I doubt that the top of a midgets head would even been seen over the fence and looking uphill, which makes me wonder why some joker would even see this person as a 'midget'. Miles - are you confessing?

The location of the shot and the smoke was out in front of them and slightly to their left. The steam pipe area was almost 90 degrees to their left. Not only has there been speculation with what they could have and would have seen, but there is also an ongoing attempt by some to distort the record for what ever reason. In the beginning it was YOU (Miles) who hadn't even read Hoffman's book before trying to make him out to be in error or had falsified some of the things he had said he seen. Now after supposedly reading Hoffman's book you are going a step further and distorting the facts. In the quote above you have taken the part where Holland admitted that it was a couple of minutes before they left the underpass and went into the RR yard to it now being within seconds. In fact, is it not the Bell film that shows the men still on the underpass around 60 seconds or so after the limo has passed underneath of it. So let's put the assassination aside for a moment so you can please tell this forum why you are misstating the facts even after they have been posted several times over? Two problems here. As I said before - the Bell film shows the men still on the underpass as long as a minute following the limo leaving the plaza. You may want to argue otherwise, but first note that Bell had stopped his camera and started filming again. The second problem that I see is that you have no way of knowing what distracted who and for how long. You keep telling this forum that no one saw anything tossed near the steam pipe, but yet Weitzman wrote in his report that a worker had told him that he saw something through the bushes being tossed after the shooting and the location was over near the steam pipe. Claim someone in cahoots with Hoffman had helped establish what you believe was a lie as far as anyone tossing anything in the RR yard if you like, but just stop misstating the facts - if you can. It takes less than 15 seconds to break down a rifle if one knows what they are doing. I cannot say from where you are from how they measure time, but a walk to the steam pipe plus 15 seconds for a breakdown of a weapon is still far under the time allowance Holland gave for getting off of the underpass. If you have other time frames that are not general descriptions, but rather in minutes or seconds from Dodd, Simmons, etc., then please post them. Thanks, Bill Miller

I looked at that silly list - Tague - Franzen's - what kind of nonsense was that supposed to be? From where the Farnzen's stood, Tague, and others - looking uphill at a wooden fence would not allow them to see what occurred in the RR yard no matter how hard they looked. Most people watched the limo race away and most likely watched the parade continue by. To see a deed - one has to be looking at the persons doing the deed. Any distraction would possibly prevent the deed from being witnessed. As far as what poor old Ed saw - I'd be more concerned about what the poor old researchers thought before having all the facts straight. Bill Miller

I think Ed tried to say that the worker disappeared behind the signal box from where he was positioned on the freeway. Anyway, Ed's family has told me that Ed doesn't have a good understanding of the English language and that he doesn't always give the right signs to make his point clear. This was one of the reasons that I wanted his daughter to interpret for him. As I said once before - even Ed's daughter had trouble communicating with him at times because Ed was not saying things clearly and I could sense the frustration with Ed that it was causing. Bill

Well boys - get out your MWKK series and watch it again. Ed shows the man breaking down a gun - opening a bag and placing it inside - closing the bag - and picking it up and walking out across the RR yard. Now my recollection is based on my memory .... see if I don't have it correct. Thanks, Bill

One thing this thread should have done was show people how witnesses statements can and have been distorted to take on whole new meanings which could eventually be used against their credibility. How can one really fault Ed and the way he communicated his story to interpreters when normal people without disabilities cannot restate the record correctly. In an another thread it was posted that Ed saw the RR worker place the gun in a signal box - Ed actually said that the gun was broken down near a signal box and placed in a bag and carried off. Now it is being said that Ed's men were by the signal box. Ed clearly demonstrated the location at the fence where he saw the man with the rifle and Ed then turned and walked down the fence to where the steam pipe used to be and in the direction of the signal boxes. We should really try and keep what Ed said straight or else a whole other version of Ed's story will have been given birth to. Bill

Was not the Oswald rifle alleged to have been broken down and taken into the TSBD by Lee on the morning of the assassination. I don't believe Ed said that the RR worker hid the rifle in the signal box, but rather he put it into a bag and walked away with it. I am not sure just why you think it would be unlikely to have an accomplice to hide a weapon, but I can see someone doing it. The RR yard was not completely hidden to everyone and I am sure that is why the man with the fake SS badge was around so to bail out his partner if things got a little too close for comfort. Now having just fired a shot - why would someone not want to toss the gun off to someone else so they can stroll off without any weapon rifle in their possession? It boils down to plausible denial IMO. If someone thinks they saw a man in a hat shoot a rifle at the President and it is found that the man was stopped and had no such gun on him - who is the wiser?? I have heard people say that there were RR workers close by, but who were they and were they affiliated with the conspiracy in any way? I bet if one looked into it further - they might be surprised to find that there were even people on the police force who would just as soon someone shot Kennedy over anyone else. Racial lines drawn, the John Birch Society members and so on .... assuming that anyone wearing a RR workers clothing that day must be on the up and up is not necessarily a comfortable position to take for me. If the fake SS agent taught me nothing else - it is not to think that just because someone appeared to be on the up and up that day didn't necessarily make it so. Bill

They do not get it, Craig. motion blur, panning blur ... they just look at you with a blank stare on their face. Bill

Is that the Dale Myers who said Badge Man would have been 40 feet back in the RR yard and standing on a ladder to replicate the individuals seen in Jack's Badge Man images? I wonder how Jack could have stand-ins on the knoll and at the fence match the people in the Badge Man images and yet Dale (Mr. Precision) has them on ladders deep into the RR yard. I should also mention that Gorden and I also matched them figures up without anyone being 40 feet into the RR yard and on ladders. Anyway, try taking one of Dales 3D animations that is supposed to replicate the Zapruder film and just try overlaying it onto a corresponding film frame and see how precise it is. Bill Miller

Miles, are you aware that the man Bowers and Hoffman are talking about have nothing to do with the Badge Man location? Is there anything specific that you can tells us that would show why Myers link on the Badge Man location is relevant to the men Hoffman saw? And before you mention the 'mouth of the underpass' as a way of nailing down a particular location along the fence - was that the Elm Street mouth, the Main Street mouth, or the Commerce Street mouth of the underpass? Each makes a big difference where along the fence one would be to be in line with each. Bill Miller

Good of you to mention Mack and Hancock ... neither of which believe in Duncan's alleged floating torso claim. Guess there is no need to look into that claim any further - right? After all, Gary is a seasoned researcher who we can revere and rely upon, not to mention that he has the best collection of original and copy prints of the assassination images. So when Gary says that the area that Duncan calls a 'wash-out' is actually the Dallas sky seen above the fence, I guess that we can rely on Gary's observation. Is this the point you were trying to make? Bill Miller

Miles, Not sure what the above was posted for other than to merely copy and paste something so to look like you had something to offer to this topic on Duncan's alleged shooter. But while we are now on the topic of Plumlee and the Cancellare photo - if you find him on the south knoll, please point him out to me, but start a new thread doing it. Thanks! Bill Miller

Maybe if I recap how I got my opinion ... Bowers described just two men along that stretch of fence. One was heavy set and the other wore a plaid coat. The heavy set man was said to have disappeared from Bowers view after the flash of light or unusual occurrence that took place at the fence. The plaid coated man remained in the area and was approached soon there after by Officer Joe Smith. Bowers had said that the heavy set man had been up near the fence looking toward the direction of the approaching motorcade. The Willis photo shows this individual just over the corner of the fence. That individual appears to be wearing a hat. Then once the kill shot to JFK was fired - there are statements by numerous people that a shot came from the picket fence where Sam Holland took Mark Lane. The Wiegman film shows the smoke coming between the Hudson tree and the camera. Hoffman independently said that the man with the gun had on a hat. So I see Hoffman talking about a hat - the Hat Man location in Moorman's photo appears to show the top of a fedora type hat over the fence. Thompson went to Dealey Plaza to see if what looked like a fedora in Moorman's picture could be explained by something in the RR yard and found that there was nothing to attribute the hat shape to - it was simply gone. Hoffman also described seeing a man toss something at or near the steam pipe - an independent witness from atop of the underpass told Weitzman that he saw something tossed over near the steam pipe following the shooting. Hoffman has wanted to take a lie detector test which would be suicidal if he was not telling the truth. So there is a little more to Ed than just meeting him in the RR yard and walking the fence with him. Bill

Wow, no time to answer Ken's question, but you have had plenty of time to xxxxx the forum with ridiculous replies that didn't address anything to do with the JFK assassination case. For people to have seen something happen - would they not have to actually be in a position to have witnessed something like that? That's like saying that no reported zseeing the guy who picked your pocket, so it must not have happened. Can we assume that Ken's question to you was one that you really had no legitimate answer for? Bill Miller

I for one was impressed that an independent witness told Weitzman that he saw something tossed near the steam pipe following the shooting. Also, it is said that a picture is worth a thousand words ... in this case a thousand words to anyone who knows how to read them. To date it has seemed that the alteration claims presented have been nothing more than someones way of passing the buck because they couldn't properly read the images before them. Bill

Well Jack .... thank you for another opinion that was based on an assumption and not on fact. During my the first presentation that I ever gave for a Lancer conference - I showed the Hat Man image at the fence and it was Ed who sought me out after the presentation and relayed the message to me that this was the guy he saw. Ed held a blow-up of the Hat Man image and pounded the paper with his finger as he pointed at the hat. It was that meeting with Ed that led to my getting him and his family to meet me in the RR yard where we walked over the area as Ed gave me the details of his observations. Bill

Jack, I never meant that you worked on Hat Man ... Groden shows this man in his book "TKOAP" ... you said something about the Moorman print for Badge Man came from a copy negative that Groden had something to do with. By the way, Jack - if you do not believe in Hat Man, then you must not believe that Ed Hoffman told the truth. It cannot be both ways. Bill

What is not debatable is a report made by Weitzman who relayed the information that a witness gave him. I also think the guy meant that he saw through a bush an object being thrown. And the last point is that it seems pretty weak to claim that because others didn't see something that it must not have happened. No one reported seeing Zapruder filming the assassination - does this mean that he and Sitzman were not on the pedestal? Not everyone on the underpass mentioned seeing the smoke come through the trees - not everyone on the underpass claimed to see a bullet spark off the street - does this mean it didn't happen? No one claimed to see Tague struck in the face - does that mean it didn't happen? Bill Miller

That is not what I was saying. Jack mentioned Groden doing that image in a dark-room. Bill

I would think that you'd be used to that by now. BM

Seems like Miles likes to post about everything but the evidence of the Kennedy assassination, but never-the-less - here is the information on the picture so you guys don't lose too much precious forum time trying to figure it out. The picture was faked around 1996 by a man named Cliff Crook. He stood this little model next to a waters-edge and tried to pass it off as a photo of a Sasquatch. Bill Miller

The who made the copy negative - Groden. Did he do anything to the image to change it - no. Groden said he used no computer or other things to enhance the image. Groden said it was all done in the dark-room. I believe that Jack has said the same thing in one of his responses. Bill

Let's not forget that its been posted numerous times that Moorman's photo was taken after the fatal shot to JFK and that she is looking uphill. For instance, depending on how far back from the fence the guy was would determine how tall he looked against it. As I recall, the top of the train tower is seen over the fence as well - does that make it a midget tower? Of course not. Bill Miller

Duncan, Why would I need the rest of the image to discuss the Hat Man location that is already there in Groden and Thompson's books? Isn't that like asking why one would not need a full Moorman photo to discuss the face of Bill Newman .... it makes no sense. Bill

I am not sure what the response above was supposed to show other than why you don't understand 'perspective'. I am always amazed at the amount of time you waste on foolishness compared to actually trying to better educate yourself so to better be able to interpret the photographic record of JFK's assassination. Bill Miller