Miles Scull Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Duncan,Bowers could have & would have seen Badge Man & Arnie, exactly because Bowers was looking directly into the area in question at the time in question. (A word in shell like: Do you think Bill will object? Be honest.) Miles, Instead he was elevated up in the train tower which hides the Badge Man location as seen in this photo taken from where Bowers was stationed. So what is this now ... ? Bill Miller "So what is this now ... ?" EXACTLY! as seen in this photo taken from where Bowers was stationed. Are you overlooking the obvious refutation of your contention? IF this is a photo of the parking lot, which is open to question, then WHAT IS THE TIME STAMP OF THIS PHOTO ? 1988? It shows NOTHING that is relevant to the time in question: Nov. 22, 1963 ! Thompson - 1967 -- & -- Miller - 1988 (?) Is there something wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Duncan,Bowers could have & would have seen Badge Man & Arnie, exactly because Bowers was looking directly into the area in question at the time in question. (A word in shell like: Do you think Bill will object? Be honest.) Miles, Instead he was elevated up in the train tower which hides the Badge Man location as seen in this photo taken from where Bowers was stationed. So what is this now ... ? Bill Miller "So what is this now ... ?" EXACTLY! as seen in this photo taken from where Bowers was stationed. Are you overlooking the obvious refutation of your contention? IF this is a photo of the parking lot, which is open to question, then WHAT IS THE TIME STAMP OF THIS PHOTO ? 1988? It shows NOTHING that is relevant to the time in question: Nov. 22, 1963 ! Thompson - 1967 -- & -- Miller - 1988 (?) Is there something wrong? A few dollars more: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 There are several people here who seem to be a few bricks short of a full load. Names not necessary...just try comprehending what they write. Their elevator stops only at the thirteenth floor. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Are you overlooking the obvious refutation of your contention?IF this is a photo of the parking lot, which is open to question, then WHAT IS THE TIME STAMP OF THIS PHOTO ? 1988? [/i] It shows NOTHING that is relevant to the time in question: Nov. 22, 1963 ! What the view shows is the LOS Bowers had to the Badge Man location. What is different is that there are no 'sea of cars' as you liked to refer to when talking about Holland's statement. As far as the overhanging tree foliage not being there, then what is that canopy hanging behind the Badge Man images made of??? Doesn't look like clear Dallas sky to me! In the future you may wish to check with the 6th Floor Museum to see what information they may have on the condition and upkeep of the trees and appearance of the plaza. It might also be helpful to find out what was done for the movie "JFK" so that the trees were made to look as they did at the time of the assassination. But if you have any doubts as to how the foliage looked at the time of the shooting - keep staring at that backdrop of foliage behind Arnold and Badge Man. Of course, your having seen the Badge Man images many times - you already knew this when you tried to get people to believe the tree foliage was so sparse that one could easily see through it. If pretending not to understand what I have been talking about is still your game, please refresh your memory by watching the Holland interview with Lane where he points from the underpass to the tree clusters where the smoke came from ... like I said before ... such a view from off to one side will bunch the tree foliage up and over the top of one another which makes quite a thick wall of foliage that cannot be readily seen through. Bill Miller Edited August 26, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 If these help for size perspective among people near the wall. Good. If not, disregard.First 3 photo sequence is the same guy moving from back to front. Next post is 2 photos with people closer to the wall edge. chris Chris, appreciate your interest & the great photos thank you! Let me ask you something. Were the photos where taken by your good self? If so(& hopefully we you won't get any input from a third part for this next question, until after you've replied) how would you go about matching Moorman's fifth photo exactly? What's the first thing you'd line-up? Please refrain from answering Chris's question for him until he has had a chance to reply. I'm not trying to trick him or anything else. Alan Alan, My brother took the photos when we were back there a few years ago. They were not taken to recreate the Moorman position. But, as they include people in different areas around the wall, thought they might offer a comparative size value between individuals. I would try to line up/size common elements which are furthest away. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Edited August 26, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Duplicat post deleted Edited August 26, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Dupe Edited August 26, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Are you overlooking the obvious refutation of your contention?IF this is a photo of the parking lot, which is open to question, then WHAT IS THE TIME STAMP OF THIS PHOTO ? 1988? It shows NOTHING that is relevant to the time in question: Nov. 22, 1963 ! What the view shows is the LOS Bowers had to the Badge Man location. What is different is that there are no 'sea of cars' as you liked to refer to when talking about Holland's statement. As far as the overhanging tree foliage not being there, then what is that canopy hanging behind the Badge Man images made of??? Doesn't look like clear Dallas sky to me! Bill Miller Duncan, Where is Badge Man's Moorman position along this fence top (photo below)? Do Miller or Jack even know? Robin, Chris? Maybe BM is peeping through the shrub leaves, the shrub seen in the photo below near the tree trunk, the shrub on the east (!) side of the fence? Even so, Bowers sees Badge Man because there is no tree canopy foliage to block Bowers' view down along the west (!) side of the fence. Notice the huge expanses of clear blue bright sky over the fence top & shining through the thin foliage higher up at the base of the canopy & even through the layered thickness midway up tree! Where are the drooping, screening tree branches & dense leaf clusters required to block Bowers view? NO WHERE. Take a look,... a long, close, careful look HERE: Edited August 26, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Are you overlooking the obvious refutation of your contention?IF this is a photo of the parking lot, which is open to question, then WHAT IS THE TIME STAMP OF THIS PHOTO ? 1988? It shows NOTHING that is relevant to the time in question: Nov. 22, 1963 ! What the view shows is the LOS Bowers had to the Badge Man location. What is different is that there are no 'sea of cars' as you liked to refer to when talking about Holland's statement. As far as the overhanging tree foliage not being there, then what is that canopy hanging behind the Badge Man images made of??? Doesn't look like clear Dallas sky to me! Bill Miller Duncan, Where is Badge Man's Moorman position along this fence top (photo below)? Do Miller or Jack even know? Robin, Chris? Maybe BM is peeping through the shrub leaves, the shrub seen in the photo below near the tree trunk, the shrub on the east (!) side of the fence? Even so, Bowers sees Badge Man because there is no tree canopy foliage to block Bowers' view down along the west (!) side of the fence. Notice the huge expanses of clear blue bright sky over the fence top & shining through the thin foliage higher up at the base of the canopy & even through the layered thickness midway up tree! Where are the drooping, screening tree branches & dense leaf clusters required to block Bowers view? NO WHERE. Take a look,... a long, close, careful look HERE: These shots from 1967 show more tree foliage than in 1963, but Bowers could have still seen under & through! Edited August 26, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Duncan,Where is Badge Man's Moorman position along this fence top (photo below)? Do Miller or Jack even know? Robin, Chris? Maybe BM is peeping through the shrub leaves, the shrub seen in the photo below near the tree trunk, the shrub on the east (!) side of the fence? Even so, Bowers sees Badge Man because there is no tree canopy foliage to block Bowers' view down along the west (!) side of the fence. You have been arguing that Bowers could see the Badge Man and now you need to ask where was Badge Man even located ... you are your worse enemy IMO. Also, your images in post 236 have a statement attached to them saying that the tree foliage is more plentiful in 67' when compared to 63'. Would you care to explain how you reached that conclusion? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Duncan,Where is Badge Man's Moorman position along this fence top (photo below)? Do Miller or Jack even know? Robin, Chris? Maybe BM is peeping through the shrub leaves, the shrub seen in the photo below near the tree trunk, the shrub on the east (!) side of the fence? Even so, Bowers sees Badge Man because there is no tree canopy foliage to block Bowers' view down along the west (!) side of the fence. You have been arguing that Bowers could see the Badge Man and now you need to ask where was Badge Man even located ... you are your worse enemy IMO. Also, your images in post 236 have a statement attached to them saying that the tree foliage is more plentiful in 67' when compared to 63'. Would you care to explain how you reached that conclusion? Bill Miller You have been arguing that Bowers could see the Badge Man and now you need to ask where was Badge Man even located ... you are your worse enemy IMO. See now? You are the Badge Man proponent, not me. I think BM is a photo illusion. Yet, you ask me to place BM's position? This means that you do NOT know yourself. So, where is Badge Man? 30 feet back from the fence 6 feet up on a step ladder? Makes sense. Also, your images in post 236 have a statement attached to them saying that the tree foliage is more plentiful in 67' when compared to 63'. Would you care to explain how you reached that conclusion? Sure no problem. That's easy. I looked at the photos. Have you? Why, it's as plain as day! If you think I'm wrong, go cry to Gary for help. Not to me! BTW, where are those much ballyhooed images of Arnold you promised the forum you were going to use to scale Arnie? Can't find them, also? Duncan is waiting. Where is the "Weitzman Report?" Everybody is still waiting. The WC Report's photos of Bowers' view? When you do something, rouse me from slumber. Thx Edited August 26, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 There are several people here who seem to be a few bricks short of a full load.Names not necessary...just try comprehending what they write. Their elevator stops only at the thirteenth floor. Jack Thanks Jack, that was needed IMO..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Would these perhaps help..........?? Miles, For heavens sake, can you stop, copying and bringing down previous posts continually. It is extremely wasteful on your part and deliberately so of Forum space and resources, seeing that this has been requested of you in the past by administration. I take it that you do not care.....It does make the information so difficult to follow, that people have stopped reading your posts, for your information.....duh...... Or is this just a part of your plan to Bug the ever loving xxxxe out of all.. All this does and has is turn people off, but oh is that also a part of your aggravating plan...?? Get real......your not doing yourself any favors, nor your research...when people are ignoring...you..FYI. B.... Edited August 26, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) You have been arguing that Bowers could see the Badge Man and now you need to ask where was Badge Man even located ... you are your worse enemy IMO.See now? You are the Badge Man proponent, not me. I think BM is a photo illusion. Yet, you ask me to place BM's position? This means that you do NOT know yourself. So, where is Badge Man? 30 feet back from the fence 6 feet up on a step ladder? Makes sense. I have posted where Badge Man was standing IMO. Maybe you missed those post like you did the many that mentioned Mike Brown's name. And its nice to try and pass off the responsibility of knowing where Badge Man stood, but you have already referenced Bowers as having been able to easily see anyone behind the fence. I pointed out that the elevated view Bowers had would have hidden Badge Man's upper body from Lee, which the cars would have blocked the view of his lower body. In your response you chose to make the same erroneous statement again and again concerning your opinion that Bowers could see the Badge Man had Badge Man of been behind the fence. You stepped in it when you then needed to ask where Badge Man would have been standing ... that's what happens when you xxxxx instead of citing the facts. Also, your images in post 236 have a statement attached to them saying that the tree foliage is more plentiful in 67' when compared to 63'. Would you care to explain how you reached that conclusion? Sure no problem. That's easy. I looked at the photos. Have you? Why, it's as plain as day!If you think I'm wrong, go cry to Gary for help. Not to me! BTW, where are those much ballyhooed images of Arnold you promised the forum you were going to use to scale Arnie? Can't find them, also? That's OK, Miles ... you do not have to answer my questions ... if cat, your not answering the questions does anwer the question - if you know what I mean. I just wanted it in the forum record. Glad you mentioned the Arnold image(s). I did finally get one of the images I was looking for, but the resolution wasn't high enough to serve my purpose, so I have requested another copy, but of much higher quality. Duncan is waiting. Where is the "Weitzman Report?" Everybody is still waiting. The WC Report's photos of Bowers' view? When you do something, rouse me from slumber. I'm still in BC, Miles ... sit back and relax ... have another doughnut. It's not like you have anything better to do. Bill Miller Edited August 27, 2007 by Bill Miller 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