On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

Please see posts # 414 & #429 on this tread for reply.

Miles,

This is a joke - right???

In response #429 you want someone to point out the source for the shadow as if to say that if they cannot, then it must be a shadow from the smoke. As I recall ... you have said the smoke would have dissipated in about 6 seconds (If you said five seconds or seven seconds and come back with a silly response asking why I have misstated something you have said - don't waste your time for I will not play the xxxxx game with you) Now about the shadow, by the time Bond took the photo I posted - I believe it is safe to say that we are now way past the dissipation of smoke stage, thus the shadow still being seen on the fence is logically not from smoke. I believe that I know from the suns angle as to which tree cluster of leaves that is causing it, but if it is your purpose to then argue as that guess being wrong because you may have gone from the position that it is smoke and must be a shadow from the tree, thus you automatically will have another cluster in mind, then save your breath.

As far as response #414, it appears to be much of the same from you as everyone is going to see!!! But before I show you to be in error once again and knowingly IMO ... even if Holland had not said the word 'drifted", is it your goal to argue over a word that I didn't even put into quotes? If a witness has said 'the president was HIT IN THE HEAD' and I said the witness said 'the president was SHOT in the head' ... is it your intention to try and provoke an argument over such a petty CHILDISH NONSENSE?????? Now about that word 'drifted' that you find so alarming and such a propaganda effort on my part ..........

Here you insert your own word "DRIFTED" which word was never used by Holland or any other witness to describe the movement of the smoke.

You have tried to alter & change the meaning of key witness' testimony as a propaganda effort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYj3FAUHwro

Holland: "It DRIFTED right out out from underneath those green trees - those two trees"

Just exactly as you also tried to reduce the size of the smoke cloud from 48 " wide to 24" wide. See prefixed post above as citation & proof of this.

I am not sure what the above implies because I didn't see the context in which it was said, but if in one post I had ever said 48" and then in another 24", then it could be because we were talking instead of the total smoke counting the swirls, but now only the dense white cloud. Or it could have been estimates depending on how hard one cared to narrow it down to at the time. In fact, it could be found that its true size is between the two and is 36" - who knows and how important can it be???

Please cite one forum member, who has posted on this long thread, who agrees with your position that there is smoke in Wiegman.

I think you tried to play that game before on another matter and then it ended up some people responded to your nonsense giving me a 4 to 2 victory based on such a flawed poll. Could it be that everyone else who didn't post in this thread believe that it is smoke, thus you lose! Now isn't that an intelligent position to take. (deep sigh~)

Propaganda: A type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid

Bill Miller

Edited October 12, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Please see posts # 414 & #429 on this tread for reply.

Miles,

This is a joke - right???

That is correct.

Please cite one forum member, who has posted on this long thread, who agrees with your position that there is smoke in Wiegman.

Could it be that everyone else who didn't post in this thread believe that it is smoke, thus you lose! Now isn't that an intelligent position to take.

That's precisely the joke.

Alan, Chris, Robin, Duncan, Ashton & myself say there is zero smoke in Wiegaman, only red trees.

You say there is.

Propaganda: A type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid

Therefore, smoke in Wiegman is propaganda.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

That's precisely the joke.

Alan, Chris, Robin, Duncan, Ashton & myself say there is zero smoke in Wiegaman, only red trees.

You say there is.[/color]

Miles.

My hand is pointing to a cluster of leaves not in shadow but, either in direct sunlight or enveloped by smoke. I think it's sunlight, I mean, it looks like sunlit leaves to me but it resembles smoke too(IMO).

(Alan)

Good, thx.

It's a joke.

The absurd smoke CLOUD might have resulted from a salvo of picket rifles, maybe flint locks.

NOT A CONTEMPORANEOUS SINGLE SNIPER'S RIFLE !! ONE SHOT ?

(Miles)

Miles,

Your response is non-responsive IMO. For instance, if several of those same individuals supported the idea that modern rifles didn't smoke (which one or two may have), thus like you - they too would be obviously wrong! As far as the rest of your position goes that I do not agree with - the idea that because someone didn't chime in and support an observation one way or the other somehow relates to their own position on an issue .... let me remind you that the remaining hundreds of members of this forum didn't feel compelled to post against you pertaining to the 'modern rifles don't smoke campaign', so their not posting didn't make what you said any more true than not. By using your twisted logic, then that would mean that they all agreed with you and if that was indeed the case, then they all would have been wrong as well, just as the HSCA test firings and the tower footage showed.

The fact is that this form of nonsense pertaining to how you weigh the merit of your own responses isn't valid, which also falls under the definition of propaganda. The same flawed logic could be used to say that because none of your list of star researchers didn't voice an opinion as to whether Holland used the word "drifted", then that must mean that they had no opinions at all ... using such responses or lack thereof as if to mean anything is an illusion on your part IMO. If you would like for me to start listing how such a way of thinking is flawed and why - I can. We could start where you first posted in the Duncan shooter thread where you believed the smoke originated from on the knoll. Then we can go onto where you then switched position and said that modern rifles don't smoke. Then we can go onto the next position of yours which was the Nix film doesn't show smoke on the knoll, so it must not be there .... to no wait everyone - you now see what you believe to be evidence of smoke on the knoll in Nix by way of a shadow being cast upon the fence and if no one can show its source, then you must be correct. Latter images of that same shadow on the fence proved IMO just how flawed your way of thinking is on such matters.

Touching back on the Holland use of the word 'drifted' that you attempted to xxxxx some sort of argument over. Here is something you (Miles) posted pertaining to what Holland saw and lets see if you see any recognizable words in what you wrote ........ See below!

Bill Miller

Post #252 by Miles Scull: "With a modern rifle, the smoke is propelled violently out of the muzzle forward as a jetting stream for several feet, until the smoke loses intense trust out several feet from the barrel extended over the fence. Then the smoke would continue forward several more feet until it would slow & begin to ride on the wind where Holland would have seen it drift out from under the trees & so drift away to the SE, rapidly dissipating. The volume & massive quantity of suspended particulates of the huge smoke cloud allegedly seen in the Wiegman film is far, far to great to have been caused by a single rifle shot."

Post #413 by Bill Miller: "Addressed in previous response. (Holland was quite clear as to which trees the smoke drifted out between)"

Post #414 by Miles Scull: "Here you insert your own word "DRIFTED" which word was never used by Holland or any other witness to describe the movement of the smoke. You have tried to alter & change the meaning of key witness' testimony as a propaganda effort."

No better example of someone using a double standard so to xxxxx a response could ever be offered than the above presentation. In post #252, you (Miles) had no reservations is using the word "drift" in describing what Holland would have seen. When I used it in the same fashion, you (Miles) cried foul! Not only was your behavior childish and bias to say the least, you were wrong on top of everything else because Holland did use that word when standing with Lane on the Triple Underpass in Dealey Plaza. Other examples of your bizarre behavior came when you continuously and purposely used the term 'midget man' and attempted to make a mockery out of Gordon Arnold pertaining to references made towards him which caused for Kathy Beckett to speak up.

The following is what someone wrote pertaining to the definition of an Internet xxxxx:

Excerpts from the article

"Internet Trolls"

Copyright © 2001 by Timothy Campbell

July 13 2001 Edition

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

"What is an Internet xxxxx?

An Internet "xxxxx" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people."

"Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish."

"Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility."

"When a xxxxx attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel."

"When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them"

(The repetitive use of large spaced letters, unrelated photos of A-bombs, candy, cannon and musket fire could be viewed as some examples of this)

Now, I have my own opinions as to what I have witnessed over the "drifted" remark, not to mention other similar responses and others can have their own. The time has come when that game has been exposed for what it is. I don't write this post to seek a debate, but to merely express an opinion based on the record.

Bill Miller

Edited October 13, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

name='Alan Healy' date='Oct 11 2007, 07:55 PM' post='122172'

If one cross references what Miles sees as possible smoke, then they will find that its the shadows being cast onto the fence. The tree branch looks transparent for the same reason the fence slats are missing and why parts of the witnesses bodies are faded out, not to mention the print on the road signs - its the poor quality of the film.

Bill

Why encourage people to cross reference something & then tell them what they are seeing before they have a chance to do so & in the same sentence?

I would encourage people to not take Millers word for anything.

Is that okay with you Bill?

Sure thing, Alan. I mean if I say that the image on the fence can be seen long after the shooting and you still want to think its smoke for a while longer, thats OK by me ... by all means study the image - get a time line for when the post assassination images were taken - and then you can respond telling me how you agree that it couldn't be smoke considering the evidence presented to you. I certainly have no problem with that.

Bill

Edited October 13, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

If one cross references what Miles sees as possible smoke, then they will find that its the shadows being cast onto the fence. The tree branch looks transparent for the same reason the fence slats are missing and why parts of the witnesses bodies are faded out, not to mention the print on the road signs - its the poor quality of the film.

Bill

Why encourage people to cross reference something & then tell them what they are seeing before they have a chance to do so & in the same sentence?

I would encourage people to not take Millers word for anything.

Is that okay with you Bill?

Sure thing, Alan. I mean if I say that the image on the fence can be seen long after the shooting and you still want to think its smoke for a while longer, thats OK by me ... by all means study the image - get a time line for when the post assassination images were taken - and then you can respond telling me how you agree that it couldn't be smoke considering the evidence presented to you. I certainly have no problem with that.

Bill

I would encourage people to not take Millers word for anything.

Is that okay with you Bill?

A sniper firing a single shot simply would not have produced the massive smoke cloud seen in Wiegmen.

However, he could easily have produced the smoke seen by Holland.

As I said:

First of all, a professional sniper does not carry a freshly oiled rifle on an ops. He cleans & dries it with wads & solvents (Ever used AV gas?), of course, just exactly because he is looking for & preparing for a CLEAN, PRECISE, OPTIMUM shot & opportunity optimisation for success. Do you know anything at all about rifles? No.

No, he does not shoot a blunderbuss, which would have generated this massive cloud.

If you are saying that a single rifle, carefully prepared for a vital mission by a trained assassin sniper, would have, by a single discharge, produced this HUGE CLOUD at this DISTANCE from the fence:

Those [modern] weapons will produce some aftermath smoke from power burn, but only in quantity of, say, the volume of an American football or, max, a rugby ball. That smoke is not dense & quickly disperses after a very few feet of drifting.

With a modern rifle, the smoke is propelled violently out of the muzzle forward as a jetting stream for several feet, until the smoke loses intense trust out several feet from the barrel extended over the fence. Then the smoke would continue forward several more feet until it would slow & begin to ride on the wind where Holland would have seen it drift out from under the trees & so drift away to the SE, rapidly dissipating. The volume & massive quantity of suspended particulates of the huge smoke cloud allegedly seen in the Wiegman film is far, far to great to have been caused by a single rifle shot.

Smoke? Oh Yes, certainly. No doubt.

But, no, NOT so much as is allegedly seen in Wiegman.

That's absurd.

This post has been edited by Miles Scull: Sep 30 2007, 10:32 AM

To be fair, you are correct. Both Holland & I used the word "D R I F T" in regard to rifle smoke. I stand corrected.

However, I never said modern rifles emit zero smoke.

That's precisely the joke.

Alan, Chris, Robin, Duncan, Ashton & myself say there is zero smoke in Wiegaman, only red trees.

You say there is.

Propaganda: A type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviour of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid

Therefore, smoke in Wingman is propaganda.

You seem to resort to ad hominem attacks to insist that there is smoke in Wiegman, although everyone else (Alan, Chris, Robin, Duncan, Ashton, Miles) who has analysed on this long thread says there is no smoke in Wiegman, but only red leaves.

I noticed that you have placed in your bio that you once received a Mary Ferrell Award.

Just to be clear & so as not to be unfair to you, did you receive this award for your work on the alleged smoke in Wiegman, by any chance?

[Alan Healy]

Gary Mack told me just recently that were at least ten witnesses that reported seeing smoke & I have no reason to doubt him, I trust he is correct.

Alan, I take it that you have abandoned your past position on not accepting anything Mack would say based on your 'hearsay rule' . I am glad to see you have adjusted your thinking on that matter.

Bill Miller

You really need to study what the hearsay ruling is all about because you still obviously have not the first clue.

Gary was not referring to people who told him about smoke "over the phone" or in a quite corner of the plaza when no one else was around.

He is talking about people already on the record who's testimony or interviews were recorded & can be checked.

And it was my mistake, Gary said "close to ten people" not "at least ten", in actual fact the number is less than that he informs me.

I'll give you an example because you seem to have a hard time with this & how it works.

If these witnesses were not on the record talking about smoke & the only source of the word "smoke" in 45 years came from Gary, then not just I but everyone would be highly scepticle & he as a gentleman would understand that, it's nothing to do with personal trust, it's just the way things work with "evidence".

Once again, go read up on some law online, concentrating on the word "hearsay" & spend less time picking nats out of posts, it's not like you have nothing better to do is it?

[Alan Healy]

name='Alan Healy' date='Oct 11 2007, 07:55 PM' post='122172'

If one cross references what Miles sees as possible smoke, then they will find that its the shadows being cast onto the fence. The tree branch looks transparent for the same reason the fence slats are missing and why parts of the witnesses bodies are faded out, not to mention the print on the road signs - its the poor quality of the film.

Bill

Why encourage people to cross reference something & then tell them what they are seeing before they have a chance to do so & in the same sentence?

I would encourage people to not take Millers word for anything.

Is that okay with you Bill?

Sure thing, Alan. I mean if I say that the image on the fence can be seen long after the shooting and you still want to think its smoke for a while longer, thats OK by me ... by all means study the image - get a time line for when the post assassination images were taken - and then you can respond telling me how you agree that it couldn't be smoke considering the evidence presented to you. I certainly have no problem with that.

Bill

This is the kind of BS that needs cleansing from this forum.

[Alan Healy]

Okay I've just watched the unedited Wiegman on tape, it's on the NBC "As it Happened" compellation.

There is no sharp image of the cluster before the limo frame, so you have to have used the frame two seconds after that & placed it before it "by accident".

That "+56" frame is the one you used.

It's the only one there is that has the similarities I pointed out.

'El Wrongo' as usual, Alan. The frames in that clip were in the order that they played on the film. Believe it or not - I am smart enough to know that if out of order, then anyone who watched the film that knows or understands anything about perspective would easily spot such a thing. It seems that you and Miles must have been separated at birth because you both appear to have a genetic flaw whereas each time you make a half-backed observation about anything ... you somehow think you have figured the whole thing out.

Bill Miller

What I said above stands.

There is no frame before the limo frame in the unedited Wfilm that shows either the warehouse or the cluster in focus, your frame comes from two seconds after not 6-9 frames before.

I've seen the unedited film, there is nothing there.

You had better start thinking of explainations for how you got the frames switched around while you still can.

[Bill Miller]

You really need to study what the hearsay ruling is all about because you still obviously have not the first clue.

Gary was not referring to people who told him about smoke "over the phone" or in a quite corner of the plaza when no one else was around.

He is talking about people already on the record who's testimony or interviews were recorded & can be checked.

Hearsay: Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

The above is the definition of the Hearsay rule. In a thread where it was being challenged as to the extent of what Lee Bowers may have said to Mark Lane, Harris, or DeAntonio - it was suggested to not take Macks word for it, but rather to call Harris or Lane and hear it from them. The response theme was that this would be nothing but hearsay.

And it was my mistake, Gary said "close to ten people" not "at least ten", in actual fact the number is less than that he informs me.

FWIW, this is what Mack said to you, "I said there were "nearly" ten who saw smoke, not "more than" ten. The exact number is, as best I recall, seven or eight."

Once again, go read up on some law online, concentrating on the word "hearsay" & spend less time picking nats out of posts, it's not like you have nothing better to do is it?

Thank you for the advice, Alan. Maybe a post showing all the remarks about 'hearsay' in the thread I speak of and by whom would be in order - you think!

Bill

[Bill Miller]

What I said above stands.

There is no frame before the limo frame in the unedited Wfilm that shows either the warehouse or the cluster in focus, your frame comes from two seconds after not 6-9 frames before.

I've seen the unedited film, there is nothing there.

You had better start thinking of explainations for how you got the frames switched around while you still can.

You sound like Miles ... please post the frame that matches the exact frame that I used and reference exactly where on the film it can be found.

Thanks,

Bill

[Bill Miller]

What I said above stands.

There is no frame before the limo frame in the unedited Wfilm that shows either the warehouse or the cluster in focus, your frame comes from two seconds after not 6-9 frames before.

I've seen the unedited film, there is nothing there.

You had better start thinking of explainations for how you got the frames switched around while you still can.

Please post the frame that matches the exact frame that I used and reference exactly where on the film it can be found.

Thanks,

Bill

Edited October 14, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

The following is what someone wrote pertaining to the definition of an Internet xxxxx:

Excerpts from the article

"Internet Trolls"

Copyright © 2001 by Timothy Campbell

July 13 2001 Edition

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

"What is an Internet xxxxx?

An Internet "xxxxx" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people."

"Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish."

"Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility."

"When a xxxxx attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel."

"When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them"

(The repetitive use of large spaced letters, unrelated photos of A-bombs, candy, cannon and musket fire could be viewed as some examples of this)[/b]

Now, I have my own opinions as to what I have witnessed over the "drifted" remark, not to mention other similar responses and others can have their own. The time has come when that game has been exposed for what it is. I don't write this post to seek a debate, but to merely express an opinion based on the record.

Bill Miller

As I've said before in this thread, a "xxxxx" describes your posting style very well Bill.

Still not recognised the similarities?

"Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility."

That is you!

All that's missing above is the paragraph on hypocrisy.

[Alan Healy]

What I said above stands.

There is no frame before the limo frame in the unedited Wfilm that shows either the warehouse or the cluster in focus, your frame comes from two seconds after not 6-9 frames before.

I've seen the unedited film, there is nothing there.

You had better start thinking of explainations for how you got the frames switched around while you still can.

Please post the frame that matches the exact frame that I used and reference exactly where on the film it can be found.

Thanks,

Bill

You first.

[Alan Healy]

You really need to study what the hearsay ruling is all about because you still obviously have not the first clue.

Gary was not referring to people who told him about smoke "over the phone" or in a quite corner of the plaza when no one else was around.

He is talking about people already on the record who's testimony or interviews were recorded & can be checked.

Hearsay: Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

The above is the definition of the Hearsay rule. In a thread where it was being challenged as to the extent of what Lee Bowers may have said to Mark Lane, Harris, or DeAntonio - it was suggested to not take Macks word for it, but rather to call Harris or Lane and hear it from them. The response theme was that this would be nothing but hearsay.

Wow! You have a major malfunction somewhere.

Read & comprehend the definition you are quoting.

Hearing it direct from the witness is not hearsay. Anyone elses report of what that witness said is hearsay(without recorded evidence of course).

LMFAO

FWIW, this is what Mack said to you, "I said there were "nearly" ten who saw smoke, not "more than" ten. The exact number is, as best I recall, seven or eight."

I never said there were "more than ten" xxxxx

Once again, go read up on some law online, concentrating on the word "hearsay" & spend less time picking nats out of posts, it's not like you have nothing better to do is it?

Thank you for the advice, Alan. Maybe a post showing all the remarks about 'hearsay' in the thread I speak of and by whom would be in order - you think!

Just go & do what I requested, any xxxxx can copy & paste something but you would expect someone familiar with law to learn it!

Learn the definition & learn how to differenciate between hearsay & what comes direct from the hourses mouth

Hearsay: Evidence based on the reports of others(mack groden & jones) rather than the personal knowledge of a witness(bowers) and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Give me strength.

[Bill Miller]

To be fair, you are correct. Both Holland & I used the word "D R I F T" in regard to rifle smoke. I stand corrected.

However, I never said modern rifles emit zero smoke.

Because of the way you carefully play on words as you seemingly xxxxx with your responses, you will often appear to me to be saying things that contradict the other. For instance: You will say in one breath that you have never said that rifles don't emit some smoke, but yet in some responses you will say things like the following while posting photos of cartridge boxes that advertise "smokeless" ammunition.

Miles posted: "Note "SMOKELESS" on a 1960s-vintage cartridges box (.222):

By the 1960s smokeless powder was perfected & used as cartridge charge.

Why?

Well, if you are a sniper (or a hunter or a infantry man) under cover, the last thing you want is self-targeting discharge smoke (or muzzle flash) for enemy or game discovery of your position."

I noticed that you have placed in your bio that you once received a Mary Ferrell Award.

Just to be clear & so as not to be unfair to you, did you receive this award for your work on the alleged smoke in Wiegman, by any chance?[/color][/b]

The answer would be "no".

Bill Miller

Edited October 14, 2007 by Bill Miller