Jump to content
The Education Forum

Michael Hogan


Recommended Posts

At one time years ago a man approached me in Dealey Plaza

saying he was a big fan of my photo analysis work and that

he had some photo enhancement work he would like my opinion

about.

It was an 8 x 10 negative that I had bought through the National Archives - nothing more. Also prior to your strolling onto the knoll, I had just given a copy to Groden, as well. In fact, I believe I have posted a few times in the past that the filmed 2000 Lancer Conference was taped and I showed that 8 X 10 negative during my presentation.

He was thin, and I think

wore glasses. I took him to be around 40 years old. He followed

me around and forced one of his negatives on me, and got me

to promise to study the "man in the window". He gave me an

email address in a distant state to respond to. He said his name

was "Bill Miller".

The photo used on this forum was taken for that 2000 Conference. The hair, glasses, face, and suit was the one that you met in the plaza, who knew Groden, knew Weisberg, and had corresponded with Fletcher Prouty for some time. And what about forcing negatives on you? The last accounting of that story had me as "medium build" and there was no mention of me following you anywhere or forcing anything on you. You wasn't in front of the Depository Building either - you were on the steps near Zapruder's pexdestal. In fact, I believe it was Robert that said there is Jack ... let him see it. You also rendered an opinion right then and there and that was all the windows which had their blinds pulled has been altered. You saw the white patches on some windows and not others, thus it was a sign of alteration to you. You never noticed the blinds were closed in some of the windfows or even half opened, thus the glare from the sun hit the back of them.

Below is what you originally posted before painting the story for what ever purpose you had in mind for doing so ....

"It was a number of years ago on one of the many occasions

that I was in Dealey Plaza, probably in November. I was in

front of the depository and a man came up to me and

introduced himself as Bill Miller. He was of average size and

appearance and dressed in suit and necktie and carried a

briefcase. I had never seen him before, but he stood out in

the casually dressed crowd of people. He asked if I was "the

well-known JFK photoanalyst". He wanted to show me something

and get my opinion. Opening his briefcase, he handed me an

8x10 negative of a well-known photo showing the sniper nest

window. He claimed he saw another person in the window adjacent

to the open window and wanted my opinion. I looked at the neg

and told him that I could not give him an opinion without

enlarging the neg and studying it. He gave me the neg and

asked me to study it...so I took it home and eventually made

a computer scan and studied it. I think I eventually gave him

an opinion, but can't remember what I told him. Attached is

a scan of the negative he gave me. He tried very hard to

ingratiate himself and make friends. He seemed eager to

make the acquaintance of me, Jim Marrs and other researchers.

I thought little of the incident, since I am always approached

by many researchers from many states on occasions like this."

I soon joined the DellaRosa forum and found "Miller" there also.

He was very abusive, very different from the man in the plaza.

He eventually was banished for his abusive personal attacks.

Jack, I had never heard of that forum until to told me about it ... it was you who invited me there. Let us at least keep the recent history straight even if we can't keep the ancient history right.

Bill

Hmmmm. Small point, but I was definitely near the entrance to the depository

when Miller approached me.

Jack

Howdy, folks!!!

Welcome to "Sunday Night Reruns."

Tonight's archived thread addresses the conversation that went on in 2004 concerning the above meeting.

Oh, yes!! I almost forgot. Cameo appearance by Larry Hancock!

Enjoy!!!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1478

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hmmmm. Small point, but I was definitely near the entrance to the depository

when Miller approached me.

Jack

I guess one could say that we were both in the same plaza and be correct. Like I added to an earlier reply ... are you sure that you are not confusing me with the "Brawny" paper towel guy that you may have seen on the package at the super market at some point???

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel left out whenever a thread goes for three pages without me contributing. First, I want to apologize to Michael Hogan. Second, I want to point out that over the last few years I have had several exchanges on this forum and Lancer with the person known as Bill Miller. (I have always assumed that he really is Bill Miller, since it's my understanding that people in Dallas know Bill Miller, and Michael Hogan has even been to his home. So I don't understand how Bill Miller could be some fictional character.) These exchanges have been educational, with the score about even, Bill getting the best of me a couple of times, and I getting the best of him on a couple of others. But I do have the distinction of discrediting, without even knowing anything about photography, his notion that Black Dog Man was Gordon Arnold. This may be my lasting contribution to JFK research!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel left out whenever a thread goes for three pages without me contributing.

There is an unwritten forum rule that no thread can be considered closed until Ron has had his spake.

But I do have the distinction of discrediting.. his [Miller's] notion that Black Dog Man was Gordon Arnold. This may be my lasting contribution to JFK research!

I am on the fence about BDM and Badgeman and Ed Hoffman and Gordon Arnold (and you know which fence I mean, the one where Hatman can be seen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Bill Miller is Larry Peters & if Bill Miller is Gary Mack, is Gary Mack then Larry Peters? :eek Could it be? It just might be. :lol::lol:

OK, Jack, wadda ya know, wadda ya say? :lol:

Don't forget the name "James Gordon" and/or "Buck Naked" which is another alias I like to use from time to time. post-1084-1183334609_thumb.gif

It is my well-known opinion of at least 90 percent likelihood

that "Bill Miller" is an alias of "somebody".

In my opinion, the Simkin "Miller" is not the Dallas "Miller". Could I be

mistaken? Of course. I have met thousands of researchers, and I may

have mixed them up somehow. But each of these two guys made a

distinct impression on me for significantly different reasons.

The intelligence community deals routinely in dual identities, such as

Harvey and Lee.

Jack

Jack,

Thank you for your explanation. Looking over a number of posts, old & new,

on this topic, it becomes clear that the tangle & thicket leaves one pretty confused.

Still the topic keeps turning up, even after all these years. Seem to remember that

you & Gary Mack collaborated on TMWKK, possibly on the badgeman question.

So, I would imagine that with time you came to regard Gary as a good friend and

trusted colleague. (Might add that I have had several contacts with Gary & he's always

been a ready helper when asked.)

Therefore, my guess is that to you the idea that Gary could be Miller or Peters or both

is adsurd on its face. After all, even to an outsider such as I am, the various details you

mention seem to clash strongly with such an idea. Things do not fit together that way. No way.

However, if you have a second, I would like to ask you to consider a poser.

Here's a question:

Can you say with logical certainty that Gary has not had & does not have & never has

had a connection in some way to this strange case?

Miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Bill Miller is Larry Peters & if Bill Miller is Gary Mack, is Gary Mack then Larry Peters? :eek Could it be? It just might be. :lol::lol:

OK, Jack, wadda ya know, wadda ya say? :lol:

Don't forget the name "James Gordon" and/or "Buck Naked" which is another alias I like to use from time to time. post-1084-1183334609_thumb.gif

It is my well-known opinion of at least 90 percent likelihood

that "Bill Miller" is an alias of "somebody".

In my opinion, the Simkin "Miller" is not the Dallas "Miller". Could I be

mistaken? Of course. I have met thousands of researchers, and I may

have mixed them up somehow. But each of these two guys made a

distinct impression on me for significantly different reasons.

The intelligence community deals routinely in dual identities, such as

Harvey and Lee.

Jack

Jack,

Thank you for your explanation. Looking over a number of posts, old & new,

on this topic, it becomes clear that the tangle & thicket leaves one pretty confused.

Still the topic keeps turning up, even after all these years. Seem to remember that

you & Gary Mack collaborated on TMWKK, possibly on the badgeman question.

So, I would imagine that with time you came to regard Gary as a good friend and

trusted colleague. (Might add that I have had several contacts with Gary & he's always

been a ready helper when asked.)

Therefore, my guess is that to you the idea that Gary could be Miller or Peters or both

is adsurd on its face. After all, even to an outsider such as I am, the various details you

mention seem to clash strongly with such an idea. Things do not fit together that way. No way.

However, if you have a second, I would like to ask you to consider a poser.

Here's a question:

Can you say with logical certainty that Gary has not had & does not have & never has

had a connection in some way to this strange case?

Miles

The JFK case is rife with duplicity of a classifed nature.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, to see him mercilessly savaged & degraded recently on the forum by Miller was a sad & painful event for all forum members. It was an unmitigated act of cruelty by Miller which renders the witnessing mods to a position of clearly scarred conscience. I tried to point out this outrage of decency to the mods & John, but I found that they deleted my protest.

Mike has gotten more attention drawn to him from you bringing up the issue in several threads now than what I posted. As i recall, it was Jack who I responded to by merely suggesting that his lost post may have been an act of God. I think Jack's direction was that it was deleted by someone at the highest levels of the forum. Hey Miles ... maybe you can crack that mystery one day.

As far as John deleting any threads - I was not aware, nor do I disagree with his decision to do so. I responded to Jack - Mike responded to me - so I responded back to Mike letting him know that we all could have things about us looked down upon by someone somewhere. From then on it was mostly you (Miles) that made a big deal out of it all.

...

That's not true at all. I thought you were completely out of line in the removed thread, I said so, and I reported you for it.

No one had to make a big deal out of it Miller 'cause it was a big deal already.

Behavior that bad is a big deal.

Myra,

Very true. Couple of associated thoughts:

After pushing to envelope of decency to the breaking point, Miller then happily breaks it, as in the Hogan case. Then when this occurs & members complain, Miller remembers that he has been expelled from other forums. Miller then becomes the mild mannered, affable milk man who purrs & fawns before the Mods who are apparently shocked senseless at witnessing the enormity of Miller's outrage. As an old time troller Miller knows that as time goes by the thread of his outrage will fade away & all will be conveniently forgotten. Miller banks on his alleged reputation as a "photo expert" to cow the mods during the time required for his outrage to drift away into oblivion. A nice con. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, to see him mercilessly savaged & degraded recently on the forum by Miller was a sad & painful event for all forum members. It was an unmitigated act of cruelty by Miller which renders the witnessing mods to a position of clearly scarred conscience. I tried to point out this outrage of decency to the mods & John, but I found that they deleted my protest.

Mike has gotten more attention drawn to him from you bringing up the issue in several threads now than what I posted. As i recall, it was Jack who I responded to by merely suggesting that his lost post may have been an act of God. I think Jack's direction was that it was deleted by someone at the highest levels of the forum. Hey Miles ... maybe you can crack that mystery one day.

As far as John deleting any threads - I was not aware, nor do I disagree with his decision to do so. I responded to Jack - Mike responded to me - so I responded back to Mike letting him know that we all could have things about us looked down upon by someone somewhere. From then on it was mostly you (Miles) that made a big deal out of it all.

...

That's not true at all. I thought you were completely out of line in the removed thread, I said so, and I reported you for it.

No one had to make a big deal out of it Miller 'cause it was a big deal already.

Behavior that bad is a big deal.

Myra,

Very true. Couple of associated thoughts:

After pushing to envelope of decency to the breaking point, Miller then happily breaks it, as in the Hogan case. Then when this occurs & members complain, Miller remembers that he has been expelled from other forums. Miller then becomes the mild mannered, affable milk man who purrs & fawns before the Mods who are apparently shocked senseless at witnessing the enormity of Miller's outrage. As an old time troller Miller knows that as time goes by the thread of his outrage will fade away & all will be conveniently forgotten. Miller banks on his alleged reputation as a "photo expert" to cow the mods during the time required for his outrage to drift away into oblivion. A nice con. :lol:

Miles,

I seem to remember you acting in much a similar manner, but I thought all that was water under the bridge.

I fail to see the purpose of the rehash.

Can't we move on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miller banks on his alleged reputation as a "photo expert" to cow the mods during the time required for his outrage to drift away into oblivion. A nice con. :lol:

I submit that there is nothing "alleged" about Bill Miller's contribution to the ongoing inquiry into the significance of the extant photo evidence in the JFK case. He has been recognized for his contributions by a Mary ferrell award at Lancer and his work has been praised by that most venerable JFK researcher, Josiah Thompson, among others.

Balance all that against his alleged "outrage" against Michael Hogan and I think we are dealing with mountains vs. molehills.

The offending thread has been deleted, but as I recall, it seemed to amount to no more than a reference to an incident that might give some people a good chuckle at Michael Hogan's expense. Michael is a big boy, and he has demonstrated in the past that he can certainly dish it out himself, so I don't see how this gets to be a Federal Case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true at all. I thought you were completely out of line in the removed thread, I said so, and I reported you for it.

No one had to make a big deal out of it Miller 'cause it was a big deal already.

Behavior that bad is a big deal.

Myra,

Very true. Couple of associated thoughts:

After pushing to envelope of decency to the breaking point, Miller then happily breaks it, as in the Hogan case. Then when this occurs & members complain, Miller remembers that he has been expelled from other forums. Miller then becomes the mild mannered, affable milk man who purrs & fawns before the Mods who are apparently shocked senseless at witnessing the enormity of Miller's outrage. As an old time troller Miller knows that as time goes by the thread of his outrage will fade away & all will be conveniently forgotten. Miller banks on his alleged reputation as a "photo expert" to cow the mods during the time required for his outrage to drift away into oblivion. A nice con. :lol:

You people are nuts!!! You make a mockery out of JFK's assassination by spending more time trying to be tabloid writers. My cause consisted of telling Jack that maybe God prevented his post from showing up on the forum - to telling a long time friend on the JFK case that he too could have people say that there are things about him that they might not respect. When he asked what that could be - I sent him a private message answering that question. It was the sh*t disturbers who have made it more than it was. In some aspects - I wish the thread would have stayed in place so people could go back and read exactly what was said and by whom. Miller is Mack - Peters is Miller - Gordon is Miller and Peters. John Simkin pointed out that my writing style is similar to Mack's, but his contacts with Mack have been through emails. Can anyone tell me how I can send email via Gary Mack's email address???

It's little wonder that such ridiculous threads get so much attention from a very select few because the JFK case is much more vast and time consuming to learn compared to reading tabloid type postings.

The real Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true. Couple of associated thoughts:

After pushing to envelope of decency to the breaking point, Miller then happily breaks it, as in the Hogan case. Then when this occurs & members complain, Miller remembers that he has been expelled from other forums. Miller then becomes the mild mannered, affable milk man who purrs & fawns before the Mods who are apparently shocked senseless at witnessing the enormity of Miller's outrage. As an old time troller Miller knows that as time goes by the thread of his outrage will fade away & all will be conveniently forgotten. Miller banks on his alleged reputation as a "photo expert" to cow the mods during the time required for his outrage to drift away into oblivion. A nice con. :lol:

One associated thought:

My Controls/Manage Ignored Users/Add a new user to your list

Edited by Myra Bronstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May 24, 2007 blog from Salon.com:

"The Education Forum, a sprawling complex of chat rooms covering a broad spectrum of history subjects, was created by an enterprising British scholar named John Simkin. Its many discussion threads on the Kennedy presidency and its violent end are provocative and refreshingly free of the obsessive nuttiness and flame-throwing that characterize many online Kennedy circles. Simkin's forum has attracted respected JFK researchers like Anthony Summers and Larry Hancock, as well as dozens of serious amateur historians well worth talking with, and even the occasional aging source with some firsthand information about the case.

The Mary Ferrell Foundation and Education Forum sites are both shining examples of communal learning and research -- exactly what the Internet was intended to do, in all its democratic glory."

-- David Talbot

Wonder what he'd think if he'd been around here lately???

Wouldn't it be a great idea if we stopped all this, and set some sort of standard for ourselves, as Talbot thinks we have?

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May 24, 2007 blog from Salon.com:

The Education Forum, a sprawling complex of chat rooms covering a broad spectrum of history subjects, was created by an enterprising British scholar named John Simkin. Its many discussion threads on the Kennedy presidency and its violent end are provocative and refreshingly free of the obsessive nuttiness and flame-throwing that characterize many online Kennedy circles. Simkin's forum has attracted respected JFK researchers like Anthony Summers and Larry Hancock, as well as dozens of serious amateur historians well worth talking with, and even the occasional aging source with some firsthand information about the case.

The Mary Ferrell Foundation and Education Forum sites are both shining examples of communal learning and research -- exactly what the Internet was intended to do, in all its democratic glory.

-- David Talbot

Wonder what he'd think if he'd been around here lately???

Wouldn't it be a great idea if we stopped all this, and set some sort of standard for ourselves, as Talbot thinks we have?

Good point, Kathy!

I was just out the door to catch the A train to a couple of new forum topics. The atmosphere around here has lost it's freshness & was becoming too hot. But just as I reached the door, the phone rang, so it was back down the hall to see who was calling. Exasperating! I was just about to move on, Kathy, as your advice was welcome & constructive. Damn!

Guess who was calling? Yep, it was Miller.

Now, take a look at this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0251&st=300

Then take a look at this one:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10390

I agree with Jack 100%.

Why is Miller leaping into EBC's brand new thread which EBC just started up, considering the terrible exchanges Miller caused over on EBC's old thread?

Making high resolution scans of poor blurry reproductions is of no benefit to anyone.

That's not true. As Miller could easily see from my post, EBC's scans are very beneficial to me. Miller is deliberately insulting to me & worse to EBC. Miller is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment.

Jack had the best prints available to do his work with ... this point seems to continually get forgotten be a few folks.

"...a few folks"? Who might that be? Maybe me & EBC? Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment.

Had Jack of only had the print that these so-called enhancements were made from,

"...so-called"? An insult. It probably took EBC a lot of effort to produce these scans. Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment.

then there would not have been a Badge Man or a Gordon Arnold.

Jack said, "Your badgeman area is an unrecognizable blur." In case someone

"...someone"? Who would that be? Maybe me & EBC? Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment.

still doesn't know what Jack has implied ... let me have a crack at it.

Why? Jack was clear enough. Miller is trying to rub it in. Why? Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment.

If using a copy print that is so blurry that one can no longer see the recognizable images in the good print, then one isn't going to find legitimate

"...legitimate"? Why choose this word? Is EBC trying to do something illegitimate? An insult. Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment.

shapes and figures after the clarity has been lost. In other words - blurring an image loses information - it doesn't offer new information.

Of course, this so obvious that it's clear that Miller is deliberately adopting the tone of a teacher explaining the obvious to a child in order to deliver an insult. Miller is sneering & snide & is trying to stir up trouble & resentment.

Bill

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Today, 05:08 PM

So, Kathy, here we were just on the brink of MOVING ON & what happens? Miller begins to pollute & poison a perfectly new, fresh & clean thread that was not his thread but was started by a helpful & polite member. Review all of EBC's posts. Then, see what happens when Miller starts with the jabs & the taunts & the digs & the insults & the slanders & the defamations & the needling & the baiting. A real nice picture for David Talbot! Oh yeah. Now what are the Mods going to do about this? :lol:

WHO IS NOT MOVING ON?

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...