Bill Miller 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 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Duncan, what are your thoughts here? Miles 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 I stand corrected & humiliated. I would think that you'd be used to that by now. BM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 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.I don't recall Jack ever mentioning that he had anything to do with the production of clearest view of Hatman. As Groden won't answer me, can you tell me if he enhanced the whole image of just the Hatman section. Duncan That is not what I was saying. Jack mentioned Groden doing that image in a dark-room. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 I have never said anything about "hatman". I have never done any work on "hatman". I do not believe in "hatman". I am not aware of any Groden interest in"hatman". Please do not associate me with "hatman". I have no interest in "hatman". Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 I have never said anything about "hatman".I have never done any work on "hatman". I do not believe in "hatman". I am not aware of any Groden interest in"hatman". Please do not associate me with "hatman". I have no interest in "hatman". Jack 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 I have never said anything about "hatman".I have never done any work on "hatman". I do not believe in "hatman". I am not aware of any Groden interest in"hatman". Please do not associate me with "hatman". I have no interest in "hatman". Jack 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 I doubt that Ed knows anything about the Moorman photo and what people think they see in it. "Hatman" is illusion seen by some, not by me, and likely not by Ed. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 I doubt that Ed knows anything about the Moorman photo andwhat people think they see in it. "Hatman" is illusion seen by some, not by me, and likely not by Ed. Jack 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 I doubt that Ed knows anything about the Moorman photo andwhat people think they see in it. "Hatman" is illusion seen by some, not by me, and likely not by Ed. Jack 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 Bill..your opinion is also based on an assumption, ie that Ed's story is true in every detail. Everything that went on behind the fence is based on assumptions that everyone who seen something there is telling the truth. Photographic evidence shows no concrete evidence, therefore we have to assume, evaluatate and convey our opinions based on what little evidence we have. I know that is what you are doing, that's what Jack, Miles, Myself and many others are doing. Just because you have met Ed makes no difference to any positive or negative conclusions. If I had a walk around the fence with James Files and he gave me his most recent story, would that mean he is telling the truth, of course it wouldn't..It might be true, it might not be true, that's the fact of this matter. Duncan Duncan, I agree. Just imagine, Duncan, if you were to be invited to give a presentation at a Lancer Conference regarding your theory on Duncan Man. After your presentation everyone in the audience was greatly impressed. People came up to you full of praise & admiration. Handshaking & back slapping! Autographs on programs! For once in your life you were important. All your years of research seemed to be finally appreciated & even validated. Then, after your presentation a man with a heavy Dutch accent came up to you to say, quietly in your ear, I know who Duncan Man is... And , so, you discover James Files. Now, you see your theory being validated by a real living person. You are even given an award by Lancer. Unfortunately, as time goes on, certain critics begin to question you, your theory & your main underpinning proof of your theory, James Files. You, Duncan, retaliate against these critics by accusing them of ignorance & dishonesty. Of course, Duncan, you would never fall into such a silly scenario as this is. But as a cautionary tale of the fall of Duncan Man (...till Burnham Wood doth come to Dunsinane...) or was it Macbeth Man? Some Scotsman... Blair Man? As an example only of the form & structure of the disputes you, Duncan, might fall into see this exchange of 3 (three) years ago by people whom I greatly admire & respect: How did you say it? " a strong circumstantial evidence showing the high probability of this happening..". If this statement works for you?... why not for me? Are you that "closed minded"? If so I do not want to deal with you. Thanks again for any "factual" information you care to share with me or the Forum. It would be appreciated. Tosh Plumlee For a story to be even remotely considered plausible, there has to be cooperation from all parties at getting at the truth. Documents are nice, but they too can be forged. I had heard that you started out saying you were in the street and when shown a good Cancellare print ... you were unable to find yourself or your alleged companion. Then I heard that you thought you were on the knoll itself. For all I know you may have chosen another location since then, so my question was a fair one in my opinion. That question is simply - where exactly do you now say you were standing? At the moment I am only interested in the photographical record concerning your story. You'll have to forgive me if my question makes you feel like it doesn't deserve a straight answer, but I have had a couple of times where I met someone who told me they were in Dealey Plaza and they walked me out to the location and gave a pretty convincing story about that they had seen and heard. I then went back and looked at the films and photos and not only were they not where they said they were - no one was in that area. When I tried to get them to explain their absence from the available images which they obviously didn't know well - they too all of a sudden became defensive and didn't to deal with me. From what I recall - you have said you were on an abort mission to stop the murder of President Kennedy, but you say you were standing on the South knoll when it happened. Surely if you were in Dallas to abort the mission, then you must have been told were to go to get word to the assassins. So if I wanted to drill you on things that do not make sense - I believe I could, but all I have asked so far is an exact location where you are now claiming to be. If you are unsure where you were or are afraid that I will show that area and penetrate any shadows that you have chosen to place yourself in, then I can certainly understand your not wanting to deal with this. President Kennedy's murder was a serious matter to me and serious questions have to be raised. I don't intend on going back and forth with you and getting evasive answers. I don't want to be told you were someplace and if it's shown no one is really there - I don't want you to have to pick another location. So unless I get an updated reply as to where you say you and your alleged spotter was, then the photographical record as I no it does not support you being where I believe you have said you were. I can get details out of photos that some cannot. Just as some originally thought the man behind the truck was sitting in its truck bed bed - enhancements can clear up a lot of things. If you are where you claim to have been, then I'll find you. Bill Nor do I intend on going back and forth with you. Your quote: ".... I had heard that you started out saying you were in the street and when shown a good Cancellare print ... you were unable to find yourself or your alleged companion. Then I heard that you thought you were on the knoll itself. For all I know you may have chosen another location since then, so my question was a fair one in my opinion. That question is simply - where exactly do you now say you were standing?..". You have heard from others as to what they have said I said. I have never changed my statements as to where I was standing, to you are anyone. In fact I have never talked to you or told you anything about that day or where I was or doing. You assumed from others that I have changed my position and now your trying to imply I am dishonest and dis-information. I have dealt with your kind before. I am on record for many years stating where Sergio and I were located at the time the shots were fired. If you choose to listen to others telling you what they say I said, and now present what you have heardt as fact, then that tells me a lot about your qualifications as a researcher. I have tried to be fair with you and all forum members. In my opinon, it is researchers like you with closed minds and preconcieved concepts based on your own ego and concieted self worth that make it hard for the hard working honest researchers to do their job. I'm sorry for you. Think what you want. But, as far as I am concern.., go peddle concepts somewhere else.. With all due respect. I mean that in the most positive way. Tosh Plumlee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 (edited) dupe Edited July 12, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Bill..your opinion is also based on an assumption, ie that Ed's story is true in every detail. Everything that went on behind the fence is based on assumptions that everyone who seen something there is telling the truth. Photographic evidence shows no concrete evidence, therefore we have to assume, evaluatate and convey our opinions based on what little evidence we have. I know that is what you are doing, that's what Jack, Miles, Myself and many others are doing. Just because you have met Ed makes no difference to any positive or negative conclusions. If I had a walk around the fence with James Files and he gave me his most recent story, would that mean he is telling the truth, of course it wouldn't..It might be true, it might not be true, that's the fact of this matter. Duncan 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 (edited) Nor do I intend on going back and forth with you. Your quote: ".... I had heard that you started out saying you were in the street and when shown a good Cancellare print ... you were unable to find yourself or your alleged companion. Then I heard that you thought you were on the knoll itself. For all I know you may have chosen another location since then, so my question was a fair one in my opinion. That question is simply - where exactly do you now say you were standing?..". You have heard from others as to what they have said I said. I have never changed my statements as to where I was standing, to you are anyone. In fact I have never talked to you or told you anything about that day or where I was or doing. You assumed from others that I have changed my position and now your trying to imply I am dishonest and dis-information. I have dealt with your kind before. I am on record for many years stating where Sergio and I were located at the time the shots were fired. If you choose to listen to others telling you what they say I said, and now present what you have heardt as fact, then that tells me a lot about your qualifications as a researcher. I have tried to be fair with you and all forum members. In my opinon, it is researchers like you with closed minds and preconcieved concepts based on your own ego and concieted self worth that make it hard for the hard working honest researchers to do their job. I'm sorry for you. Think what you want. But, as far as I am concern.., go peddle concepts somewhere else.. With all due respect. I mean that in the most positive way. Tosh Plumlee 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 Edited July 12, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 I doubt that Ed knows anything about the Moorman photo andwhat people think they see in it. "Hatman" is illusion seen by some, not by me, and likely not by Ed. Jack 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 Bill..your opinion is also based on an assumption, ie that Ed's story is true in every detail. Everything that went on behind the fence is based on assumptions that everyone who seen something there is telling the truth. Photographic evidence shows no concrete evidence, therefore we have to assume, evaluatate and convey our opinions based on what little evidence we have. I know that is what you are doing, that's what Jack, Miles, Myself and many others are doing. Just because you have met Ed makes no difference to any positive or negative conclusions. If I had a walk around the fence with James Files and he gave me his most recent story, would that mean he is telling the truth, of course it wouldn't..It might be true, it might not be true, that's the fact of this matter. Duncan Duncan, Forgot to mention Dale Myers' analysis (thx Mr. Healy) of the real Bowers testimony which adds additional (!) undermining of Ed's story, which just doesn't add up. Unfortunately. See: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm Miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 (edited) Duncan,Forgot to mention Dale Myers' analysis (thx Mr. Healy) of the real Bowers testimony which adds additional (!) undermining of Ed's story, which just doesn't add up. Unfortunately. See: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm Miles 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 Edited July 12, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 (edited) Duncan, Forgot to mention Dale Myers' analysis (thx Mr. Healy) of the real Bowers testimony which adds additional (!) undermining of Ed's story, which just doesn't add up. Unfortunately. See: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm Miles 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 Correct. Hoffman's men were by the signal boxes near the train tracks. Bowers' men were by the fence behind the pergola...maybe 150-200 feet farther away. Not the same men. Jack Edited July 12, 2007 by Jack White 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