Bill Miller Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Hey Miller!1) Stop quoting me! Apologies for impinging on Duncan's research. I thought I could try and get a closer look a the shooter in Moorman's photo. Apologies again to Duncan. What is it with you .... you can't debate the evidence any further and have sat quiet for days on the subject - and the only thing you can think of doing now is bitch about someone using the quote function so not to misstate your remarks. What a piece of work! 2)I am sorry that systematically (?) and logically (?) investigating a photograph is considered an old trick to you, EBC. To paraphrase Josiah Thompson in Oswald's Ghost: " Miller? Systematic? Logical? In the JFK Forum?!! Well, maybe. but I'm gonna have to be shown!!!" To be shown anything - one must first understand what they are talking about. As for being a systematic and logical investigator you area chaotic, specious and unmethodical bungling clown! Were you being systematic and logical when you thought my "possible trajectory lines" were "perspective lines"? EBC As I pointed out in a past response - YOU did not mention the word trajectory in your initial post, but you did mention the view showing perspective. Now if you think of anything pertaining to the evidence we have discussed - feel free to bring it up because what you are doing now is wasting forum space IMO. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) Miller!! You total waste of space! Why do you continue to expose your absolute stupidity and total lack of intelligence? Are you some sort of masochist or what? What is it with you .... you can't debate the evidence any further and have sat quiet for days on the subject - and the only thing you can think of doing now is bitch about someone using the quote function so not to misstate your remarks. What a piece of work! You have NO right to quote remarks which I was making to a third party! Quote anything I say to you directly. Otherwise be silent! As I pointed out in a past response - YOU did not mention the word trajectory in your initial post, but you did mention the view showing perspective. Now if you think of anything pertaining to the evidence we have discussed - feel free to bring it up because what you are doing now is wasting forum space IMO. Bill As you pointed out in the past? I did use the word trajectory. I did use the word perspective. I was using the word perspective in its general sense - standpoint, outlook,view,perception,point of view,side, angle. For some strange reason you equate the word 'perspective' with the two words 'perspective line'. It really takes a special level of illiteracy to claim that 'perspective' and 'perspective line' are the same. This laziness in thinking and in explaining yourself exhibits the characteristic trait of all your posts: it shows over and over again your total inability to argue your case. Your lack of competence in distinguishing between 'perspective' and 'perspective line' is evidence of some sort of difficulty in reading which you have. You saw the word 'perspective' and you read 'perspective line'. This thoughtless, reckless and rash reading of posts is unacceptable. Now if you think of anything pertaining to the evidence we have discussed - feel free to bring it up because what you are doing now is wasting forum space IMO Miller! Could I remind you that I started this thread and have contributed to it more than you with your claptrap and drivel. EBC Edited July 10, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 This posting contains so much MISINFORMATION about Gordon Arnold, Gary Mack,Earl Golz, Jim Marrs and the facts that it would take several hours to debunk it point by point. I don't have the time for such a futile exercise. Things said about the above people are untrue; I was there, I know these people; the above writers do not. Jack Pick any one point & I'll defend what I wrote by quoting the written record verbatim. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 (edited) Eugene B. Connolly wrote: Miller!! You total waste of space! Why do you continue to expose your absolute stupidity and total lack of intelligence? Are you some sort of masochist or what? [...] EBC ************************ Actually Eugene a few of us think he's vieing for a position at the TSBD! Imagine that, if you will. I graciously noted to Bill Miller some time ago, that I'd write him a letter of recommendation concerning his graphics and composing abilities. I haven't heard back, yet. [sigh] Also, a few years back I told Bill I 'd recommend him for a job with ADOBE (you know, the Photoshop folks), I did some on-camera work with John Warnock, CEO and founder Adobe, Inc., way back in the early Adobe ILLUSTRATOR (Adobe's first image software package) days, what 20 years ago, maybe more.... I could hook him up, alas -- he refused! My good will has run the limit, and I see yours has too! KUTGW! David Healy Edited July 11, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Actually Eugene a few of us think he's vieing for a position at the TSBD! Imagine that, if you will. I graciously noted to Bill Miller some time ago, that I'd write him a letter of recommendation concerning his graphics and composing abilities. I haven't heard back, yet. [sigh] David, more propaganda I see? Those few of you that you speak of - are they the same few who think the lawn sprinklers in the plaza are listening devices?? Or would they be he same few who say Altgens 6 is genuine while also saying Moorman and Hill are in the street??? Or would that be the same few who have said that they believe the Zfilm is altered and elsewhere have said that they have seen no proof of alteration???? Yes, I want a letter of recommendation from you alright. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Actually Eugene a few of us think he's vieing for a position at the TSBD! Imagine that, if you will. I graciously noted to Bill Miller some time ago, that I'd write him a letter of recommendation concerning his graphics and composing abilities. I haven't heard back, yet. [sigh] David, more propaganda I see? Those few of you that you speak of - are they the same few who think the lawn sprinklers in the plaza are listening devices?? Or would they be he same few who say Altgens 6 is genuine while also saying Moorman and Hill are in the street??? Or would that be the same few who have said that they believe the Zfilm is altered and elsewhere have said that they have seen no proof of alteration???? Yes, I want a letter of recommendation from you alright. Bill Miller just the facts son, just the FACTS! So run along, do something constructive, make a .gif or something... Seeya round the hood, Champ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 just the facts son, just the FACTS! So run along, do something constructive, make a .gif or something... Seeya round the hood, Champ! How much more factual can one get than this .... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0 Post #8 David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15 post #19 David Healy: I go with the Z-film is altered ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 (edited) Actually Eugene a few of us think he's vieing for a position at the TSBD! Imagine that, if you will. I graciously noted to Bill Miller some time ago, that I'd write him a letter of recommendation concerning his graphics and composing abilities. I haven't heard back, yet. [sigh] David, He's definitely vying for something. Perhaps Assistant Grassy Knoll Grass Cutter (With Special Responsibilities for Weeds) and Graffiti. He'll never get a position at the TSBD. Ok, they just might give him the position of Oswald's Dummy. Eugene Edited July 16, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 You accuse Jack of not supplying information. I'm asking you for the Umpteenth time to produce on this forum, the FULL Moorman image where you obtained your Hatman crop from. Will you be submitting it or not? Without the Full Moorman, your research, analysis, and results of are invalid.Duncan[/b] Duncan, in another thread you got after Craig for not being able to read IYO, yet you seem to have the same problem that you accused him of having. Each time you have asked me for a full Moorman photo from where the crops came from - I have directed you to the sources that would have it and I have said repeatedly that I do not have the full Moorman image from the copy negative that Groden or Thompson had. Your replies were that Groden doesn't answer you and that you do not know how to contact Josiah Thompson. Then someone pointed out to you that Josiah is a member of this forum and that you can PM him what ever request that you have. I have a feeling that if you put half of much time in asking the right people for what you want as you do wasting forum space with repetitive post that have been answered time and time again, then you'd probably get a lot further. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 He's definitely vying for something. Perhaps Assistant Grassy Knoll Grass Cutter (With Special Responsibilities for Weeds) and Graffiti. He'll never get a position at the TSBD. Ok, they just might give him the position of Oswald's Dummy. Eugene 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 I have contacted all of those sources, including Josiah, with no reply as yet. Should you not be trying to obtain the same information to back up your claim? after all it's you who's putting forth the Hatman theory based on someone else's crop.Duncan 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 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 You need the whole image to show everyone Hatman of this "quality" in the context of the bigger picture. I can tell for a fact that the Hatman has been enhanced. What I don't know is who enhanced it, if it was enhanced with the full image, or enhanced after being cropped, so yes I think it is important. Duncan Duncan, Haven't been following this thread, but would the original, pristine, whole image show evidence of Midget Man firing a round into the wood of the picket fence at about 5 inches below the hat brim? Splinter spray? Through & through wood puncture? Miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Haven't been following this thread, but would the original, pristine, whole image show evidence of Midget Man firing a round into the wood of the picket fence at about 5 inches below the hat brim? Splinter spray? Through & through wood puncture?Miles 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 (edited) Haven't been following this thread, but would the original, pristine, whole image show evidence of Midget Man firing a round into the wood of the picket fence at about 5 inches below the hat brim? Splinter spray? Through & through wood puncture?Miles 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 It's the how long after that's important. Duncan Duncan, As I recall, I tried to point out to you in many, many posts down the long corridor of time that Midget Man is NOT trying to shoot Mary Moorman. This is an important distinction to keep in mind. Please do so, at least for the purpose I have in the dialogue between you & me current. Midget Man, on supposition, was attempting to shoot JFK. Agreed? OK, this means that if you carefully consider you will be forced to allow that the two trajectories (MM to Moorman & MM to JFK) must be different. Agreed? I believe that you have seen this excellent Moorman before. Now, you will concur that whether Mary is in the gutter or on the grass, or even in the gutter jumping up & down with her camera held high above her head with outstretched arms, nevertheless, the vector angle of the MM to JFK trajectory is GREATER than that of the MM to Mary trajectory. This is so because Mary's camera is above JFK. Or, to be exact, JFK is below Mary's camera. Agreed? Therefore, (here's the tricky part) if JFK "had been" (on spposition) looking at MM's alleged hat at the time Mary took her picture, JFK would NOT have seen what Mary's pic shows of the alleged hat. Instead, he would have seen much less of the alleged hat. Let's say JFK would have seen only 50% of the hat that Mary's pic shows. Still with me? Well, Duncan, there you are. If MM was trying to shoot JFK, MM was staring at the wood of the fence & could not have seen the limo or the target. That's why his round knocks on wood. ( ) To anticipate your rebuttal, I mention that the idea of a small periscope placed inside a fedora, which fedora is the masking of the scope, is an idea which is only the lonely refuge of the desperate. Not good. As you yourself pointed out, this researcher (in a different field) has lost his credibility & is pretty upset about it. He is clearly starved of fudge. Duncan, what are your thoughts here? Miles Edited July 11, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Duncan,As I recall, I tried to point out to you in many, many posts down the long corridor of time that Midget Man is NOT trying to shoot Mary Moorman. This is an important distinction to keep in mind. Please do so, at least for the purpose I have in the dialogue between you & me current. Midget Man, on supposition, was attempting to shoot JFK. Agreed? OK, this means that if you carefully consider you will be forced to allow that the two trajectories (MM to Moorman & MM to JFK) must be different. Agreed? I believe that you have seen this excellent Moorman before. Now, you will concur that whether Mary is in the gutter or on the grass, or even in the gutter jumping up & down with her camera held high above her head with outstretched arms, nevertheless, the vector angle of the MM to JFK trajectory is GREATER than that of the MM to Mary trajectory. This is so because Mary's camera is above JFK. Or, to be exact, JFK is below Mary's camera. Agreed? Therefore, (here's the tricky part) if JFK "had been" (on supposition) looking at MM's alleged hat at the time Mary took her picture, JFK would NOT have seen what Mary's pic shows of the alleged hat. Instead, he would have seen much less of the alleged hat. Let's say JFK would have seen only 50% of the hat that Mary's pic shows. Still with me? Well, Duncan, there you are. If MM was trying to shoot JFK, MM was staring at the wood of the fence & could not have seen the limo or the target. That's why his round knocks on wood. ( ) To anticipate your rebuttal, I mention that the idea of a small periscope placed inside a fedora, which fedora is the masking of the scope, is an idea which is only the lonely refuge of the desperate. Not good. As you yourself pointed out, this researcher (in a different field) has lost his credibility & is pretty upset about it. He is clearly starved of fudge. Duncan, what are your thoughts here? Miles Miles, My thoughts are as they have always been, and have been saying for years, Midgetman is NOT a shooter, that's why I stated it's the how long that is important. Even if the trajectory was possible, his position in Moorman in the given time frame makes it impossible for him to be a shooter IMO. The periscope is a possibility however Maybe the pink spot you asked about earlier is a reflection off the glass? Duncan Duncan (For your eyes only.) As soon as I submitted my last post I had the typical sensation that a professional chess master experiences at the board when he suddenly realises, at the end of a long calculation of the combinations at play, that he will be checkmated in 10 moves. While immobile & quiet at the board with a carefully maintained stone like "poker face" the chess master's ears begin to blush red, then glow in bright crimson. That's how I felt when I realised that I had forgotten the "pink spot" light reflection. It is, indeed, a possible periscope lens' glint. I stand corrected & humiliated. The subtlety of your idea is that there is only one pink spot, not two. Thus, a single lens periscope, not dual lens spectacles! Yes, a small circular hole is cut in the fedora at just the right level of elevation. [The only other possibility is that Midget Man used a monocle & was sighting with his left eye as Hoffman attests. But, a monocle does not jibe with dirty hands as noticed on the bogus SS man immediately after the knoll was stormed.] My hunch is that MM is a chimera. Either that, or a hidden diminutive submariner. Thanks for your time, D, & now onward to other things... M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now