Bill Miller Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) You first. That's what I thought. You cannot figure it out, so I need to spoon feed you the frames so in the end you can say "It's still not smoke". I don't think I'll play that game. And I do understand the hearsay rules quite well. In fact, there are post I have made to you explaining them and they apply or don't apply accordingly. Now correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there one such instance where you refused to call Mark Lane to settle an issue over something Bowers had told Mark? I believe the term 'hearsay' was used in defense of not wasting time talking to Lane. The response to that was that Lane would not be saying what someone else told him as to what Bowers may have said, but rather Mark would be offering information to a conversation is participated in. Now lord knows I can misrecall something, but that theme does seem to ring a bell. Bill Edited October 14, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) As I've said before in this thread, a "xxxxx" describes your posting style very well Bill.Still not recognised the similarities? Alan, I go to great lengths to explain my position and how I come to a particular conclusion on a particular matter. You won't find my post repeatedly filled with giant lettered sentences and unrelated images so to spread a thread out over numerous unnecessary pages. As far as courtesy or social responsibility ... please be more specific. There is a line or two in the movie "Road House" where Patrick Swayze tells his people that they should 'always be nice, until its time to not be nice'. Many responses start out with the basic sharing of information and then later reach a point where patience has run out for one side or the other. Far too often someone has viewed another's criticism of their conclusion or method of reaching it as an attack on them personally when it really wasn't. A recent example was the nonsense over Bowers seeing the two men behind the fence. If Bowers said 'south' - someone implied he meant 'north'. If Bowers sad 'plaid, then someone else's says he must have meant 'red plaid'. If Bowers said that one of the men he saw was 'heavy set', then someone else will say that he must have meant that one skinny man was heavier than the other skinny man. So in that sense - patience runs thin and is accompanied by a lack of courtesy towards the other persons methodology. That should not be confused with trolling a thread by referring to people as 'midget men', especially when that person is smart enough to understand how heights decrease against a solid structure depending how far back they are positioned from it when being viewed at an uphill angle. Bill Edited October 15, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 As I've said before in this thread, a "xxxxx" describes your posting style very well Bill.Still not recognised the similarities? Alan, I go to great lengths to explain my position and how I come to a particular conclusion on a particular matter. You won't find my post repeatedly filled with giant lettered sentences and unrelated images so to spread a thread out over numerous unnecessary pages. As far as courtesy or social responsibility ... please be more specific. There is a line or two in the movie "Road House" where Patrick Swayze tells his people that they should 'always be nice, until its time to not be nice'. Many responses start out with the basic sharing of information and then later reach a point where patience has run out for one side or the other. Far too often someone has viewed another's criticism of their conclusion or method of reaching it as an attack on them personally when it really wasn't. A recent example was the nonsense over Bowers seeing the two me behind the fence. If Bowers said 'south' - someone implied he meant 'north'. If Bowers sad 'plaid, then someone else's says he must have meant 'red plaid'. If Bowers said that one of the men he saw was 'heavy set', then someone else will say that he must have meant that one skinny man was heavier than the other skinny man. So in that sense - patience runs thin and is accompanied by a lack of courtesy towards the others persons methodology. That should not be confused with trolling a thread by referring to people as 'midget men', especially when that person is smart enough to understand how heights decrease against a solid structure depending how far back they are positioned from it when being viewed at an uphill angle. Bill 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? The answer would be "no". Bill Miller This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Today, 02:59 PM Alan, I believe this answers the question: "Did Miller receive an award for claiming that there was smoke in Wiegman?" Miller's answer is "no." Therefore, on the assumption that this is correct, we must conclude that Miller got an award for something else. Since Miller's claim that there is smoke in Wiegman has been refuted by you, Chris, Robin, Duncan, Ashton & me, then does that open the door to certain further questions? For what was Miller awarded? Do you, Alan, know? (Helmet man in Zapruder?) And was that award valid? Your ideas or thoughts, Alan, would be illuminating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) Duplicate post deleted Edited October 15, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) 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." Here is another example of your double-talk. In one response you will say that there would have been smoke discharged from the rifle, but not the "blunderbuss" smoke cloud alleged in the Wiegman film. But in a response about the alleged claim Duncan made ... you attribute the 'blunderbuss' cloud to the Duncan sniper. Miles writes: "Of course, what's the time for this puff, post Z-313? Seems like the aftermath of a blunderbuss discharge. Could have come from Duncan's sniper at 33 ft. from corner of fence, however." So tell us Miles ... How is it that a sniper's rifle could not produce a 'blunderbuss' cloud of smoke in one reply, but another one of your responses indicates that a sniper from the Duncan shooter location could produce such a 'blunderbuss' cloud of discharge? Any explanation for this conflicting behavior concerning the wording of your responses? Here is yet another example .... Miles: "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 optimization 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 discaharge, prodused this HUGE CLOUD at this DISTANCE from the fence:" So Miles, it seems now that you have implied that the alleged Duncan shooter was not a professional on a vital mission because you have said that his shooter could have accounted for the 'blunderbuss discharge'. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 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.[/b] 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." Here is another example of your double-talk. In one response you will say that there would have been smoke discharged from the rifle, but not the "blunderbuss" smoke cloud alleged in the Wiegman film. But in a response about the alleged claim Duncan made ... you attribute the 'blunderbuss' cloud to the Duncan sniper. Miles writes: "Of course, what's the time for this puff, post Z-313? Seems like the aftermath of a blunderbuss discharge. Could have come from Duncan's sniper at 33 ft. from corner of fence, however." So tell us Miles ... How is it that a sniper's rifle could not produce a 'blunderbuss' cloud of smoke in one reply, but another one of your responses indicates that a sniper from the Duncan shooter location could produce such a 'blunderbuss' cloud of discharge? Any explanation for this conflicting behavior concerning the wording of your responses? Here is yet another example .... Miles: "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 optimization 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 discaharge, prodused this HUGE CLOUD at this DISTANCE from the fence:" So Miles, it seems now that you have implied that the alleged Duncan shooter was not a professional on a vital mission because you have said that his shooter could have accounted for the 'blunderbuss discharge'. [/b] 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] The answer would be "no". Bill Miller 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. Your repetitive ad hominem attacks show that you have no sensible reply to Alan, Chris, Robin, Duncan, Ashton & Miles. Enough of that, then. Let's move on to matter not exhausted, shall we? Let's examine the other subject you seem to be evading. What did you receive the "award" for? Is there some reason not to examine this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 So Miles, it seems now that you have implied that the alleged Duncan shooter was not a professional on a vital mission because you have said that his shooter could have accounted for the 'blunderbuss discharge'. Bill Miller I think Miles has got it right Bill. I just think he has not noticed yet that the "Whitewash" area around the barrel could possibly be smoke merging in with the fence, and the Dallas skyline at each side of the shooter.. or maybe he has, and that is what he was referring to without actually saying so. Am I right Miles? Duncan Exactement, mon ami. I have always said this by implication. Frankly & candidly, I would have thought this was so obvious that it hardly needed comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) Therefore, on the assumption that this is correct, we must conclude that Miller got an award for something else. That is probably the most brilliant piece of detective work that you have ever exhibited Miles - Good work! Since Miller's claim that there is smoke in Wiegman has been refuted by you, Chris, Robin, Duncan, Ashton & me, then does that open the door to certain further questions? The desire to learn opens doors to questions - trolling does not. There are several things that I can think of that you and Duncan for instance thought you were right about only to be proven wrong, so the strength in numbers thing is foolishness at play. I thought we got past that nonsense already. For what was Miller awarded? Do you, Alan, know? (Helmet man in Zapruder?)And was that award valid? Your ideas or thoughts, Alan, would be illuminating?[/b][/color] 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." Edited October 15, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share Posted October 14, 2007 So Miles, it seems now that you have implied that the alleged Duncan shooter was not a professional on a vital mission because you have said that his shooter could have accounted for the 'blunderbuss discharge'. Bill Miller I think Miles has got it right Bill. I just think he has not noticed yet that the "Whitewash" area around the barrel could possibly be smoke merging in with the fence, and the Dallas skyline at each side of the shooter.. or maybe he has, and that is what he was referring to without actually saying so. Am I right Miles? Duncan Smile~ Well, Duncan. Miles hasn't probably thought of that one yet and at first he will probably fall all over himself embracing the idea, but once it is pointed out how that would cover a pretty large area so close to the alleged gun source and before it had time to expand ... he'd then flip positions once again. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share Posted October 14, 2007 Your repetitive ad hominem attacks show that you have no sensible reply to Alan, Chris, Robin, Duncan, Ashton & Miles. Enough of that, then. Miles, you say this a lot ... thought maybe it would be best to post the definition ..... Ad Hominem: attacking your opponent personally rather than her/his argument. Ad hominem is fallacious argumentation. fallacious - containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument" The remarks I made where you make this idiotic claim over are as follows: 1) Miller reply: "The answer would be "no". " 2) Miles wrote: Seems like the aftermath of a blunderbuss discharge. Could have come from Duncan's sniper at 33 ft. from corner of fence, Miller reply: "Here is another example of your double-talk. In one response you will say that there would have been smoke discharged from the rifle, but not the "blunderbuss" smoke cloud alleged in the Wiegman film. But in a response about the alleged claim Duncan made ... you attribute the 'blunderbuss' cloud to the Duncan sniper." So it seems to me that there was no 'ad hominem' attack at all, unless of course you see my answering a question with the word "no" or pointing out that you have apparently double talked when discussing whether or not a rifle can produce what you called 'a blunderbuss discharge' of smoke. So tell everyone how you figure that you were attacked any more than a cockroach is attacked by merely turning on a light so to better see it? I look forward to your always most intelligent and never trolling response. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Your repetitive ad hominem attacks show that you have no sensible reply to Alan, Chris, Robin, Duncan, Ashton & Miles. Enough of that, then. I look forward to your always most intelligent and never trolling response. Bill Miller This is a pretty impressive list of recipients. JFK Lancer "New Frontier" Awards "In appreciation for your contribution of new evidence and futhering the study of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." Anna Marie Kuhns-Walko 1996 David Lifton 1996 Gordon Winslow 1996 George Michael Evica 1996 Jack White 1996 John Newman 1996 Robert Chapman 1997 J. Gary Shaw 1997 Vincent Palamara 1997 Joe Backes 1997 Martha Moyer 1997 Noel Twyman 1998 Wallace Milam 1998 Carol Hewett 1998 Stewart Galanor 1998 Martin Shackelford 1998 Ian Griggs 1998 Malcolm Blunt 1998 Hal Verb 1998 Cheryl Overfield, JFK Resources Online 1999 John Kelin, Fair Play Magazine 1999 Clint Bradford, Attention To Details 1999 Deannie Richards, The JFK Place 1999 Tom Blackwell, Email Updates 1999 J.W. Masland, The Nook of Eclectic Inquiry 1999 Stan Clark 1999 David Mantik 2000 Michael Parks 2000 Noel Twyman 2000 Larry Hancock 2000 Mark Sobel 2001 Donald Thomas 2002 Bill Miller 2003 Sherry Gutierrez 2003 Tom Pinkston 2005 Stuart Wexler 2005 John Hunt 2005 Don Roberdeau 2006 Rex Bradford, Mary Ferrell Foundation Archive 2006 I would think that if one were REALLY interested in why someone received such an award, that one would contact Debra Conway. She is a member here, and can be PM'd or emailed via this Forum. OH,.....OK, then. This clears things up. I think. The reason Miller does not identify his area of accomplishment for which he was awarded is not that he declines to submit his work to fair & objective study by Alan, Robin, Chris, Duncan & Miles, but is instead that he (Miller) simply does not know why he received the "award." This must be true or the case, since Kathy is suggesting that Alan, Robin, Chris, Duncan &/or Miles should contact Deb Conway. Can Kathy or Miller confirm this, please? Thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share Posted October 15, 2007 (edited) The reason Miller does not identify his area of accomplishment for which he was awarded is not that he declines to submit his work to fair & objective study by Alan, Robin, Chris, Duncan & Miles, but is instead that he (Miller) simply does not know why he received the "award." Yes, that's right Miles ... Conway aimlessly and unconsciously put together a conference, aimlessly invited prestigious people and/or researchers to attend, and gave away awards to people that she had no idea as to why she was doing it. And you wonder why your trolling isn't getting you anywhere. The game you play is a joke and a black eye to the purpose this forum was founded. I will be surprised if John Simkin and the moderators will allow a text-book-case xxxxx who is already on preferment moderation to continue on with such behavior. 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" Edited October 15, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share Posted October 15, 2007 (edited) 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. Here is the quote once again in the name of fairness. Holland: "It DRIFTED right out out from underneath those green trees - those two trees" "It kinda hung there, just like a, for a few seconds ...." Edited October 15, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 I would like to remind members to stay on topic. This topic is not about awards, nor about trolls. Any further off-topic discussion will result in moderation activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 (edited) Returning to the thread topic, Myers has demonstrated that Bowers actually said that the two men he saw were in the area of the sidewallk. Both men seen in Nix wore shirts & jackets which were plaid in appearance. This corroborates Myers contention. See: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm[/color][/b] Off-Topic items edited by moderator: Antti Hynonen Edited October 15, 2007 by Antti Hynonen 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