Bill Miller Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 (edited) I can state to you that I, for one ( and I dare say I can speak also for Duncan & many, many members who read, but don't post),... that I invariably profit & learn from your posts. You can speak for many members who do not post ... how is that possible??? I'd like to go on record that I completely agree with you with respect to the constant, unremitting pompous drivel which is odiously infused into this thread & other forum threads by Bill Miller. Miller is a disgrace to himself & the standards of decency established for the Forum by its leader John Simkin. I can tell you that, like you, I have received many complaints from Forum members & guests (whom I have invited to visit the forum with a view toward toward their joining) that they are repelled & saddened by the spectacle Miller makes of himself & by the black eye Miller gives to what could be & should be a respected & quality oriented academic forum for serious & responsible contributors to & students of the field of research. 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". Miller stands out as a blight on the Forum.Even as long ago as three years Tosh Plumlee, an actual witness (!), was assaulted viciously by Miller & Tosh was so intimidated & disgusted that he shrank from further robust Forum contributions, to the detriment of researchers who had high hopes for Tosh's "on-the-spot" testimony & evidence. This was a great & enduring loss to the Forum. Oct. 2004, this is Tosh's reply to Miller's personal attack:[/b] 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 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 Edited July 20, 2007 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 (edited) dupe Edited July 17, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 EBC, Is Bowers talking about the "two trees" pointed to by the two red lines? Or, am I confused here? I realise other trees are candidates. EBC & Duncan, Some addition notes on Bowers' testimony. Whereas McVey & co-worker would have the steam pipe in view at the critical time, Duncan Man could have escaped Bowers' notice if he had waited hidden behind a car for a few seconds after Z-313 & then mingled with the crowd; or he could have slipped into a car trunk, remembering Jack Lawrence's muddy shoes. In contrast, Bowers would have seen anyone immediately walking or running with a rifle from the muddy area by the fence to the steam pipe as descibed by Ed. QED EBC & Duncan, any thoughts? Mr. BALL - Did you see any other people up on this high ground?Mr. BOWERS - There were one or two people in the area. Not in this same vicinity. One of them was a parking lot attendant that operates a parking lot there. One or two. Each had uniforms similar to those custodians at the courthouse. But they were some distance back, just a slight distance back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 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. The floating torso only looks tall because you are comparing him to the midget 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. Bill..You claim to have seen these superior images. Can you prove it? ie, where are the results of your studies of your viewings of these superior copies, Moorman in particular. If you were a serious researcher, you'd be sharing with everyone. Duncan 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Bill Miller and Groden correspond with each other, and have had discussions about me, so I don't expect anything from him due to the Miller influence.Duncan 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Question:Is Bowers talking about the "two trees" pointed to by the two red lines? Or, am I confused here? I realise other trees are candidates. Thx M 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= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 (edited) Btw, Duncan, did you ever get the elusive better copy of the Moorman image? No..Nothing has been forthcoming yet. I've written to Groden and Thomson requesting the best copies. Bill Miller and Groden correspond with each other, and have had discussions about me, so I don't expect anything from him due to the Miller influence.Duncan Duncan, Sorry you haven't got hold of a so-called superior copy. On the question of Bowers' testimony it seems that a whole lot of F U D G I N G has been rampant now & in the past. Would I kid you Duncan? Bowers saw two men, one older with a white shirt & the other younger with a plaid shirt or jacket. Here is analysis worthy of close, careful study: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm Where did Bowers see these two men? According to Bowers, where were they located? The FUDGE (white X rigged & fudged in the Lane film of Bowers' testimony): The TRUTH (green oval from an exact & careful reading of Bowers' WORDS in toto): Remember, Bowers said that at the time that the shots were fired that there was no one along the north side of the picket fence! This means that Ed's sniper was NOT there as Ed claims, because Ed's sniper's alleged trip with his rifle through the parked cars to the steam pipe, immediately after the shots were fired, would have been seen, closely observed & followed along, through its duration & culmination in the alleged rifle toss, by Bowers & reported by Bowers. Always glad to hear your comments, Duncan. Edited July 17, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 (edited) dupe Edited July 17, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 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. Enjoy the perspective! 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 (edited) Remember, Bowers said that at the time that the shots were fired that there was no one along the north side of the picket fence! This means that Ed's sniper was NOT there as Ed claims, because Ed's sniper's alleged trip with his rifle through the parked cars to the steam pipe, immediately after the shots were fired, would have been seen, closely observed & followed along, through its duration & culmination in the alleged rifle toss, by Bowers & reported by Bowers. [/b] 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. Edited July 18, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 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? 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? Well, of course they would, Bill. My images are mere impressions, representations or reconstructions. Photographs will always win out over my images or other such images. EBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 (edited) Can anyone enlighten me? Where are the marked railroad lines going? They appear to me to be going into the picket fence. The central line will - if it continues on its logical curve - end up on Elm Street? Is this possible? IMO, there is something strange about these railroad lines? I am unfamiliar with the exact configuration of the railway lines behind the picket fence and around the car lot area. Perhaps these railway lines are disused and are the remnants of earlier lines? Has anyone an accurate photograph of the layout of the railway lines on 22nd November 1963? EBC Edited July 18, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 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?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? Well, of course they would, Bill. My images are mere impressions, representations or reconstructions. Photographs will always win out over my images or other such images. EBC 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Can anyone enlighten me?I am unfamiliar with the exact configuration of the railway lines behind the picket fence and around the car lot area. Perhaps these railway lines are disused and are the remnants of earlier lines? Has anyone an accurate photograph of the layout of the railway lines on 22nd November 1963? EBC 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,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 (edited) 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." Miller! I was hoping - indeed - I KNEW you'd come back. I do not have access to the photographs in your two copy version of the WC. My images as I have stated so many times before are not photographs. They are impressions, representations or reconstructions. Perhaps you could tell me and the rest of the forum why you directed members to your friend Myers' website? http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm What was that all about? Would a photograph not have been more useful? Thank you for again giving me the opportunity to "enlighten" you - again. Perhaps now you can answer the question: Why did you direct forum members to Myers' image? Surely you should have posted one of your photographs from your two copy version of the WC? Again,Miller explain this link: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm And also explain the perspective in Myers' image. An image which you felt the forum needed to see.(?) Why? The PERSPECTIVE not the PERSPECTIVE LINES. What was this link to Myers' image all about.....? http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm As always Miller, I look forward to your systematic and logical response. EBC Edited July 18, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly 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