The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Bill Miller]

The exact role of badgeman is not known.

Why he was where he was is unknown.

According to Tom Wilson, the head shot was about forty feet farther west.

Whether badgeman's shot hit a target is unknown.

I think you should quit making assumptions.

Jack

If Mrs. Hartman and the Officer who saw the furrow in the grass were right about the furrow being caused by a bullet burrowing into the ground, then Badge Man's missed shot can be accounted for. (Mrs. Edna Hartman saying the furrow led back to the large tree on the knoll) And if the wall was a factor as some believe, then missing JFK a little high might have been a factor because of the wall.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You seem to be trying to say something.

But what?

That's odd .. how can you debate my position if you do not know what it is?

Maybe, but I don't know for sure, maybe you are trying to figure out where Bowers says he saw the two men.

I figured out a long time ago where the men were standing that Bowers saw. In fact, Lane, Weisberg, Lane, Groden, Nigel Turner, Oliver Stone, and a whole list of others have figured it out, as well. You seem to be about the only one who hasn't figured it out.

Please indicate where you think Bowers says he saw the two men.

I have done that already in a couple of threads ... time to take time for research.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Duncan,

Have you noticed that BM fired the one worst possible trajectory out of an infinity of better alternatives?

By shooting before or after, BM avoids the corner of the wall which is the obstruction of highest elevation in his aiming pan.

BM shoots 1 inch directly over this apex, the corner of the wall.

Shooting before or after gives BM a dramatically improved shot.

Doesn't add up, especially for a professional sniper who is determined on success.

Has Bill ever had a whisper on this bomb?

What do you think?

The exact role of badgeman is not known.

Why he was where he was is unknown.

According to Tom Wilson, the head shot was about forty feet farther west.

Whether badgeman's shot hit a target is unknown.

I think you should quit making assumptions.

Jack

The exact role of badgeman is not known.

So, BM was not necessarily a shooter?

I DID NOT SAY THAT. READ WHAT I SAID.

Why he was where he was is unknown.

Right.

According to Tom Wilson, the head shot was about forty feet farther west.

OK.

Whether badgeman's shot hit a target is unknown.

Hold on. So, BM did shoot?

IT APPEARS THAT BADGEMAN FIRED A RIFLE. WE DO NOT KNOW

WHETHER HE HIT HIS TARGET.

I think you should quit making assumptions.

Not to make any rash or hasty assumptions here, if BM shot, then at what was he shooting, if not at JFK?

I DO NOT KNOW. DO YOU?

[Bill Miller]

Not to make any rash or hasty assumptions here, if BM shot, then at what was he shooting, if not at JFK?

I DO NOT KNOW. DO YOU?

I would think that a logical guess would be that the Badge Man was shooting at JFK. And if Badge Man is shooting and Mary's photo came 4/18s of a second after Z313 was exposed showing JFK's head had already been struck ... another reasonable guess could be that Badge Man may have flinched from hearing the initial kill shot being fired, he may have been influenced by the timing of the kill shot and could not fire at the exact same moment so to sound like one shot, and/or Badge Man may have aimed high so to hit the top of the President's head and to insure not hitting the wall and in the process he just missed and hit the south pasture causing the furrow that was seen in the grass. Seems there are several possibilities if one just gives some thought to the matter.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Not to make any rash or hasty assumptions here, if BM shot, then at what was he shooting, if not at JFK?

I DO NOT KNOW. DO YOU?

I would think that a logical guess would be that the Badge Man was shooting at JFK. And if Badge Man is shooting and Mary's photo came 4/18s of a second after Z313 was exposed showing JFK's head had already been struck ... another reasonable guess could be that Badge Man may have flinched from hearing the initial kill shot being fired, he may have been influenced by the timing of the kill shot and could not fire at the exact same moment so to sound like one shot, and/or Badge Man may have aimed high so to hit the top of the President's head and to insure not hitting the wall and in the process he just missed and hit the south pasture causing the furrow that was seen in the grass. Seems there are several possibilities if one just gives some thought to the matter.

Bill Miller

Of course...several possibilities and guesses and theories.

I said I DO NOT KNOW, DO YOU?

If I were to guess, I would say he missed. But if so, that

does not negate his significance. But I don't know.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

You seem to be trying to say something.

But what?

That's odd .. how can you debate my position if you do not know what it is?

But you do not have a position.

Maybe, but I don't know for sure, maybe you are trying to figure out where Bowers says he saw the two men.

I figured out a long time ago where the men were standing that Bowers saw. In fact, Lane, Weisberg, Lane, Groden, Nigel Turner, Oliver Stone, and a whole list of others have figured it out, as well. You seem to be about the only one who hasn't figured it out.

Where do YOU think Bowers says he saw the two men?

What is YOUR position?

Oh, forgot, your position is only to be found in the missing "Weitzman Report."

Please indicate where you think Bowers says he saw the two men.

I have done that already in a couple of threads ... time to take time for research.

You only think you did. Actually you did NOT.

Cite your source, or state your position.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I have done that already in a couple of threads ... time to take time for research.

You only think you did. Actually you did NOT.

Cite your source, or state your position.

Bill Miller

My source is the Ed Forum just to name one. There are many references I have made in debate to men at the fence and the men Bowers saw. Enjoy doing some research ... it really won't hurt you. If time is problem, then cut back on the trolling.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I have done that already in a couple of threads ... time to take time for research.

You only think you did. Actually you did NOT.

Cite your source, or state your position.

Bill Miller

My source is the Ed Forum just to name one. There are many references I have made in debate to men at the fence and the men Bowers saw. Enjoy doing some research ... it really won't hurt you. If time is problem, then cut back on the trolling.

Bill Miller

My source is the Ed Forum just to name one. There are many references I have made in debate to men at the fence and the men Bowers saw.

I do not find that this is correct. You never specified where exactly YOU THINK that Bowers says he saw the two men.

Now, you are refusing to so specify, when you have an easy & convenient opportunity to do so, just as you have refused to scale GI Joe for Duncan.

WHY?

I even provided you with a handy photo to help you.

Is there something to hide? Such as, for example, you really do not know where.

Until you state your position as to where YOU THINK that Bowers says he saw the two men, then you do NOT have a position.

I grant you that your position MAY be found in the "Weitzman Report," but you persistently fail to produce that as well as failing to produce the scaling for Duncan.

There seems to be emerging a pattern of evasion & obfuscation taking over this thread. Your opinion, Duncan?

Result?

Myers' analysis stands valid & unchallenged.

SEE:

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

[Bill Miller]

My source is the Ed Forum just to name one. There are many references I have made in debate to men at the fence and the men Bowers saw.

I do not find that this is correct. You never specified where exactly YOU THINK that Bowers says he saw the two men.

Well, Miles ... I was just reading over some of those post in recent days ... you'll just have to get off your tail and actually do some research. And while you are at it ... Check out all those responses mentioning Mike Brown.

Now, you are refusing to so specify, when you have an easy & convenient opportunity to do so, just as you have refused to scale GI Joe for Duncan.

I have stated in several post why the GI Joe model was a joke and would not be an accurate test. In several responses I mentioned the need to use a full bodied photo of Gordon Arnold himself so that the proportions would be the same. It seems that your question has already been answered. Again, better do some actual research.

Myers' analysis stands valid & unchallenged.

You do know don't you that Myers placement for the two men Bowers testified about is not out by Hudson .... you may want to revise your trolling comments.

Bill Miller

Edited August 30, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

My source is the Ed Forum just to name one. There are many references I have made in debate to men at the fence and the men Bowers saw.

I do not find that this is correct. You never specified where exactly YOU THINK that Bowers says he saw the two men.

Well, Miles ... I was just reading over some of those post in recent days ... you'll just have to get off your tail and actually do some research. And while you are at it ... Check out all those responses mentioning Mike Brown.

Now, you are refusing to so specify, when you have an easy & convenient opportunity to do so, just as you have refused to scale GI Joe for Duncan.

I have stated in several post why the GI Joe model was a joke and would not be an accurate test. In several responses I mentioned the need to use a full bodied photo of Gordon Arnold himself so that the proportions would be the same. It seems that your question has already been answered. Again, better do some actual research.

Myers' analysis stands valid & unchallenged.

You do know don't you that Myers placement for the two men Bowers testified about is not out by Hudson .... you may want to revise your trolling comments.

Bill Miller

Stonewalling, aren't you? It's obvious, isn't it?

Again?

Why?

Because, you agree with Myers?

But, do not want to admit that you have been wrong, for years?

No?

Then, state your position.

Where do YOU THINK Bowers says he saw the two men?

See: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

[Bill Miller]

I grant you that your position MAY be found in the "Weitzman Report," but you persistently fail to produce that as well as failing to produce the scaling for Duncan.

There seems to be emerging a pattern of evasion & obfuscation taking over this thread. Your opinion, Duncan?

Like I said - its been stated many time in recent threads. You'll just have to cut back on your trolling time and actually do some research. You have continually trolled these threads and run them up garbage so to disrupt them and push the relevant post farther apart so to make the reader have a tough time following the information being given - this is one time that your playing dumb will not get you anywhere. And because to have not bothered to even read what you say doesn't answer your question - it shows just how pathetic your responses have become. Let me offer an example of how ridiculous your trolling has become over and above others telling you to stop running up their threads with silly responses ....

If I said that that the 'man in the Doorway' in Altgens 6 (showing Lovelady) was the man Bowers saw and described in his testimony ... why would someone ask me later where do I think the man was that Bowers saw??? To ask such a question shows that the person is so disgustingly lazy or is simply unqualified to actually research the evidence of this case. It's a shame that you didn't ever hone your investigative talent to the point you honed your trolling ability.

Myers' analysis stands valid & unchallenged.

Would that be the Myers analysis whereas he took a man much taller and double the weight of Arnold and simply moved him back from the camera until he could say the stand-in was now the same size as Badge Man, thus he must have been on a ladder and almost 40' into the RR yard? I mean, what was next - using YOU and then claiming the Badge Man must have been out on Stemmons Freeway and dangling from a crane - Give me a break!!!

Bill Miller

Edited August 30, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Antti Hynonen]

Some of the posts here are getting to the point where continuing this "debate" seems useless. Many of the same questions are asked again and again, many of the same answers are answered again and again.

This seems to continue to the point where the debating parties become very annoyed with one another. This in turn leads to an escalation of very undesirable behavior in posts.

If this "ridiculous" posting continues I will close this thread. The same will happen to other threads where this type of posting occurs. After that other moderation measures will be put into effect.

[Bill Miller]

Would closing this thread not be a "victory" for those who you think are doing the disrupting? Would it not be better if constant disrupters are given a private warning , say 3 strikes and out, and then put their posts on moderation for a specified period until their behavious improves? Just a suggestion.

Duncan

Duncan makes a very good point, thus I have to agree with him. As far as my opinion goes on where the Bowers men were positioned ... several threads that I have debated in are riddled with references to these men when talking about particular locations being discussed. Miles participated in those threads, thus I assume he was reading the responses being given. I get numerous request per day through private emails asking for help on the photographical evidence, thus there reaches a point when I lose patience with someone constantly trolling the threads while not taking any time to go do a little research. Does this person have time to search through past threads - sure he does. There have been past post made whereas this individual found time to go back deep into the archives to look for negative remarks about particular individuals. So maybe instead of posting about closing threads ... why not post on how to use the search engine???

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Some of the posts here are getting to the point where continuing this "debate" seems useless. Many of the same questions are asked again and again, many of the same answers are answered again and again.

This seems to continue to the point where the debating parties become very annoyed with one another. This in turn leads to an escalation of very undesirable behavior in posts.

If this "ridiculous" posting continues I will close this thread. The same will happen to other threads where this type of posting occurs. After that other moderation measures will be put into effect.

Hello Antti,

You are quite correct.

As soon as I saw your post here, # 309, I have ceased & desisted from continuing to ask Miller any questions, just as you requested.

I have heeded your warning.

Forum Rule IV states:

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

In post # 311 on this thread immediately after you posted the above warning & immediately after reading your warning, Miller posted this post:

Duncan makes a very good point, thus I have to agree with him. As far as my opinion goes on where the Bowers men were positioned ... several threads that I have debated in are riddled with references to these men when talking about particular locations being discussed. Miles participated in those threads, thus I assume he was reading the responses being given. I get numerous request per day through private emails asking for help on the photographical evidence, thus there reaches a point when I lose patience with someone constantly trolling the threads while not taking any time to go do a little research. Does this person have time to search through past threads - sure he does. There have been past post made whereas this individual found time to go back deep into the archives to look for negative remarks about particular individuals. So maybe instead of posting about closing threads ... why not post on how to use the search engine???

Bill Miller

someone constantly trolling the threads while not taking any time to go do a little research. Does this person have time to search through past threads - sure he does. There have been past post made whereas this individual found time to go back deep into the archives to look for negative remarks about particular individuals.

Despite your warning, Miller obviously ignores your warning & continues to break the forum rules by referring negatively & insultingly to my abilities & motivations as a researcher.

I HAVE HEEDED YOUR WARNING & obeyed.

MILLER continues to break forum rules. This is the problem. NOT ME!

Why close the thread?

Why not take action against the REPEAT offender, Miller?

Edited August 30, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.

Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?

Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say.

The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.

Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?

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.

See: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

This photo offers an interesting line of reasoning.

If Bowers saw the two men inline with the mouth of the underpass, then he DID NOT see the two men at Badge Man's alleged position!

Edited August 30, 2007 by Miles Scull