Miles Scull Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 If this is not correct, then please say so. Well, I won't be surprised that what you are getting at will be any more important as how you thought that we didn't see that Bowers was talking about the three men on the steps when talking about the two men he told Ball about ... that we didn't see that Commerce Street was Elm Street when it actually wasn't ... or how we didn't know the street lamp in Groden's photo was on the south pasture and not on the north side of Elm ... like how we didn't know that the steps could not be seen from the tower window where Bowers sat ... or how we didn't know the shadows of the tree foliage on the fence wee not leaves, but smoke instead which you were also shown to be wrong about. Yes, these are just a few of the misconceptions that you carried while thinking we didn't see something that only you had. And now you claim to know something else that we don't ... let us hope it is finally something you got right for a change. But seeing how we have to stay tuned, I can only assume that once again you are starting with a conclusion and trying to find the evidence for it after the fact, thus I already doubt that what you say will amount to much.Bill Miller Well, I won't be surprised that what you are getting at will be any more important as how you thought that we didn't see that Bowers was talking about the three men on the steps when talking about the two men he told Ball about ... Before proceeding further with an analysis of Hudson's testimony which will prove that it is not credible & that Myers position is consequently newly confirmed & validated, it will be necessary to correct a few false accusations. that we didn't see that Commerce Street was Elm Street when it actually wasn't ... You suggested that Alan & I did not know that in Thompson's photo the street was Commerce. This made me think that you yourself thought that Commerce was Elm until you saw Groden's better photo. I still think that this was the case. or how we didn't know the street lamp in Groden's photo was on the south pasture and not on the north side of Elm ... I always knew the street lamp was on the south side of Elm. I clearly pointed this out here (see my post #678): like how we didn't know that the steps could not be seen from the tower window where Bowers sat I always thought an edge of the steps could be seen, and said so. ... or how we didn't know the shadows of the tree foliage on the fence wee not leaves, but smoke instead which you were also shown to be wrong about. The Wiegman film shows a cluster of leaves NOT smoke as Duncan, Chris, Robin, Alan & I have said. Only you think that the leaves are smoke. Yes, these are just a few of the misconceptions Wrong. These are, in fact, your own misconceptions. that you carried while thinking we didn't see something that only you had. Wrong again. Myers, not I, discovered the true meaning of Bowers full testimony, which places his two men at the steps area. And now you claim to know something else that we don't ... No surprise there. let us hope it is finally something you got right for a change. Don't worry, you will see. But seeing how we have to stay tuned, I can only assume that once again you are starting with a conclusion and trying to find the evidence for it after the fact, And once again, you are making a wrong assumption. thus I already doubt that what you say will amount to much. Wrong again? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 If this is not correct, then please say so. Well, I won't be surprised that what you are getting at will be any more important as how you thought that we didn't see that Bowers was talking about the three men on the steps when talking about the two men he told Ball about ... that we didn't see that Commerce Street was Elm Street when it actually wasn't ... or how we didn't know the street lamp in Groden's photo was on the south pasture and not on the north side of Elm ... like how we didn't know that the steps could not be seen from the tower window where Bowers sat ... or how we didn't know the shadows of the tree foliage on the fence wee not leaves, but smoke instead which you were also shown to be wrong about. Yes, these are just a few of the misconceptions that you carried while thinking we didn't see something that only you had. And now you claim to know something else that we don't ... let us hope it is finally something you got right for a change. But seeing how we have to stay tuned, I can only assume that once again you are starting with a conclusion and trying to find the evidence for it after the fact, thus I already doubt that what you say will amount to much.Bill Miller Well, I won't be surprised that what you are getting at will be any more important as how you thought that we didn't see that Bowers was talking about the three men on the steps when talking about the two men he told Ball about ... Before proceeding further with an analysis of Hudson's testimony which will prove that it is not credible & that Myers position is consequently newly confirmed & validated, it will be necessary to correct a few false accusations. that we didn't see that Commerce Street was Elm Street when it actually wasn't ... You suggested that Alan & I did not know that in Thompson's photo the street was Commerce. This made me think that you yourself thought that Commerce was Elm until you saw Groden's better photo. I still think that this was the case. or how we didn't know the street lamp in Groden's photo was on the south pasture and not on the north side of Elm ... I always knew the street lamp was on the south side of Elm. I clearly pointed this out here (see my post #678): like how we didn't know that the steps could not be seen from the tower window where Bowers sat I always thought an edge of the steps could be seen, and said so. ... or how we didn't know the shadows of the tree foliage on the fence wee not leaves, but smoke instead which you were also shown to be wrong about. The Wiegman film shows a cluster of leaves NOT smoke as Duncan, Chris, Robin, Alan & I have said. Only you think that the leaves are smoke. Yes, these are just a few of the misconceptions Wrong. These are, in fact, your own misconceptions. that you carried while thinking we didn't see something that only you had. Wrong again. Myers, not I, discovered the true meaning of Bowers full testimony, which places his two men at the steps area. And now you claim to know something else that we don't ... No surprise there. let us hope it is finally something you got right for a change. Don't worry, you will see. But seeing how we have to stay tuned, I can only assume that once again you are starting with a conclusion and trying to find the evidence for it after the fact, And once again, you are making a wrong assumption. thus I already doubt that what you say will amount to much. Wrong again? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) Miller is saying that the man in Moorman immediately to Hudson's left (as pointed out by the red arrow) is the man in Hudson's testimony referred to as the (a) "young fellow."If this is not correct, then please say so. Yes, Miles ... that is what I and everyone who has ever read "He was on the left side and I was on the right" out of Hudson's testimony has ever concluded. It works on the same logic as what I and everyone in the history of the assassination used to know better than to think the men on the steps could have been seen by Bowers from in is tower. To date, only you and possibly Myers has been silly enough to not been able to rationalize that the men on the steps were not the two guys Bowers spoke about. In fact, not only were the men on the steps out of sight from Bowers field of view, but none of the guys were 10 to 15 feet apart when the caravan came into the plaza ... especially if they were sitting on the steps right next to one another. And while we are on the subject - what can you tell us about the red shirted man (Williamson)? I am betting that you know absolutely nothing. And also I wonder if you (Miles) have even asked Dale Myers to prove Bowers could see Hudson. You’d think that Dale would have photos to back up his theory. Have you asked Dale to prove HIS theory? If not, why not? Bill Miller Edited October 31, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Miller is saying that the man in Moorman immediately to Hudson's left (as pointed out by the red arrow) is the man in Hudson's testimony referred to as the (a) "young fellow."If this is not correct, then please say so. Yes, Miles ... that is what I and everyone who has ever read "He was on the left side and I was on the right" out of Hudson's testimony has ever concluded. I am betting that you know absolutely nothing. Bill Miller I'm still waiting to see my post of a couple of hours ago posted. Maybe it will be bumped up? Meanwhile, it will cost only a nickle to dine with Bill & me! - Remember... Registration cost increases Thursday!Register here at the reduced rate NOW! JFK Lancer is offering at raffle, a private lunch with two JFK and RFK assassination researchers ! For just two dollars per entry, you can enter a raffle to win one of two places at a NID lunch table at on Friday with Larry Hancock and Lamar Waldron; or lunch on Saturday with William Law and Stewart Wexler. Lamar Waldron is just one of the experts planning to reveal something to his lunch mates that is not going to be made public in his presentation; so win lunch and you'll get the inside scoop! This is your chance to discuss assassination events with noted researchers and authors one on one while enjoying lunch compliments of JFK Lancer. The most unique part of this opportunity however, is that you get to choose the questions and direct the topic of conversation. So, enter the raffle as many times as you wish, two names will be drawn for each table. Then get your list of questions ready - you just might be one of two lucky persons eating lunch with Larry and Lamar, or William and Stu! Enter the raffle here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 RE: "Is the guy next to Hudson on the steps the young man he spoke of in his WC testimony".IMO Miles? No he's not. The young man who repeated told Hudson to "lie down" has to be the red shirted man. The older man has left the scene(okay, we think he has) & it is the red shirt we see next to Hudson on the ground in those aftermath photos, Willis & Bond to name but two. Unless the older guy dove for cover behind the wall & repeatedly shouted at Hudson from that spot? Anything is possible in this thread I guess but, as Hudson spoke of only one man in his entire testimony I choose the RSM to be that person. The third man ran away because he was involved with the hit some how IMHO. Alan (and Miles), What Emmett Hudson said seems very clear. The man to his left, whom he sat next to and stood next to before and during the shots, was the young man who worked on Industrial Boulevard. At the time of the headshot, this young man turned and ran up the stairs as seen in the Muchmore and Nix films. He wasn't involved with the hit. He wasn't running after a shooter. He was running for cover behind the wall. Hudson then said this man was laying down "on the sidewalk." This could only mean the sidewalk behind the wall. It wasn't the steps or the ground. He took cover behind the wall and yelled back to Hudson, "Lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President. Lay down. Lay down." So Hudson laid down "over on the ground," meaning the grass, not the steps or the sidewalk, as seen in the Hughes film. The redshirted man, who was not with Hudson, ran up the steps and joined him on the grass. So Hudson was in the grass. The young man was up at the top of the stairs lying on the sidewalk behind the wall when he called out to Hudson to lie down. The redshirted man was not the young man. Ken Ken, this thread should be a lesson to everyone to not take witnesses literally. The man to Hudson's left is never seen sitting down next to him in the photographic evidence, that is an assumption. The man who Hudson said he conversed with beforehand is also an unknown, it could of been either of those men. It is my opinion that the man who ran away was involved somehow & I made it clear it was an opinion, if it is yours that he was not, that is fine but you should at least make it clear it just your opinion & not write it like it's a fact. You have no idea why he was running & you have no idea what he did after he went behind the wall & out if sight to Nix, be honest. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was coming from above and kind of behind. Ken, if you want to take that literally that is your right but, I would wonder why Hudson is talking about the way someone is lying on the "sidewalk", when he himself was nowhere near the true sidewalk & a person on the true sidewalk would not have affected where Hudson chose to lay down. A man laying down on the steps right next to Hudson may of though & that's most likely why he lay on the grass & not the steps because of the "young man" next to him, who he sat with right next to the steps after the hit, for like a minute(in silence? I very much doubt it). The young man was up at the top of the stairs lying on the sidewalk behind the wall when he called out to Hudson to lie down. I'm open to the idea of this, but to write it like it's a fact when there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure is a bit hard to swallow. Where did you get this idea from Ken? I've never heard of it before & the man standing next to Hudson in M5 looks late thirties - early fourties to me. No? He wasn't involved with the hit. He wasn't running after a shooter. He was running for cover behind the wall. He was involved with the hit & at the time of the shooting he went down on the steps to "guard" Hudson, or distract him. He was running back to assist in the getaway. He ran into the RR yards. See? I can do it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] And while we are on the subject - what can you tell us about the red shirted man (Williamson)? I am betting that you know absolutely nothing. And also I wonder if you (Miles) have even asked Dale Myers to prove Bowers could see Hudson. You’d think that Dale would have photos to back up his theory. Have you asked Dale to prove HIS theory? If not, why not? Bill Miller ********** oh-no, not another Dale Myers cartoon! Will he provide Lightwave project files for this one? Miles, DMyers does not respond to laity - he has won a Emmy however! LMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) 4. Back to Couch for the curb shot.chris Thank you Chris, Bernice & Robin but it's not Couch. It's far cleaner footage than Couch's for starters. Almost exact same moment from Couch but different POV. Looks like it's from someone there in CC#2 but that would rule out Darnell since he was in the same car as Couch. Also, IMO Hargis still beside his bike in this Wframe; Wiegman beat Hargis to the knoll then IMO Edited October 31, 2007 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote:[...] And while we are on the subject - what can you tell us about the red shirted man (Williamson)? I am betting that you know absolutely nothing. And also I wonder if you (Miles) have even asked Dale Myers to prove Bowers could see Hudson. You’d think that Dale would have photos to back up his theory. Have you asked Dale to prove HIS theory? If not, why not? Bill Miller ********** oh-no, not another Dale Myers cartoon! Will he provide Lightwave project files for this one? Miles, DMyers does not respond to laity - he has won a Emmy however! LMAO! While your post says nothing in the way of evidence (as usual) - your point is well taken. The Myers site that Miles likes to refer to mentioned two trees and in doing so, the Hudson tree was removed altogether while other trees further west remained. I find this action on Dale's part to be somewhat suspect and it does bring into question why he never bothered to present photos of the area himself so to make his case. Edited October 31, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) The man to Hudson's left is never seen sitting down next to him in the photographic evidence, that is an assumption.The man who Hudson said he conversed with beforehand is also an unknown, it could of been either of those men. We have never seen any photographic evidence as to how Hudson got on the steps either, but if he told us how he managed to get there - who would think what he said was unreliable? One might keep in mind that what a person recalls in times where there was no stress may be more reliable than how they recall things in moments of much excitement and stress. For instance, it seems logical to me that Hudson would have no trouble remembering sitting on the steps and talking to the man who sat with him ... how the guy told him where he parked - where he worked and so on. Even when the caravan turned onto Elm Street, I find nothing that would cause Hudson not to remember how they both merely stood up side by side, especially when the Willis photo shows the man seen in all the images of Hudson on the steps is in fact to Hudson's immediate left. It is only when Hudson starts having to describe things that happened when the shooting was going on does Emmett say things that don't seem all that accurate. And why not - that's what happens when people are thrown into a state of shock. Jackie didn't even recall ever climbing out onto the trunk of the limo. Hudson gave Ball a two minute time frame (maybe less) for the duration of the shooting when we know that's not true. However, Hudson could easily have thought about the time frame from when he heard the first shot ... to the point he was sitting on the ground near the tree as being close to two minutes (maybe less) as he said. To some people who are thrown into states of shock - things seem to be recorded in their minds in slow motion, thus giving a longer time frame for the event than what really happened. The point being is that one can see at what point Hudson would have been under such stress and shock so to not record in his mind the latter events correctly and still have that not influence what he remembered doing before the shooting started. As far as thinking that one man ran off because he was involved in the shooting ... on what grounds would one conclude this? Standing with his hands in his pockets involved him in what way? People think the dark complected man along with the umbrella man were involved in the assassination and they didn't immediately run away. So what purpose would a conspirator have for standing with Hudson with his hands in his pockets only to then run away in an attempt to get out of the line of fire??? Bill Miller Edited October 31, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) I'm open to the idea of this, but to write it like it's a fact when there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure is a bit hard to swallow.Where did you get this idea from Ken? I've never heard of it before & the man standing next to Hudson in M5 looks late thirties - early fourties to me. No? In talking with Gary Mack one day I had mentioned that the guy standing next to Hudson looked like he was African American or Hispanic to me and Gary rightfully pointed out that there really isn't enough detail in Moorman's existing prints to make that determination. In fact, Gary didn't see the man as either. So who would better know how the man really looked - those of us looking at multi-generational images or the guy who sat only inches away from the man talking to him for a short time before the caravan came onto Elm Street ... I'd say Hudson would be the best witness to the man's age over anyone else. Edited October 31, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote:[...] And while we are on the subject - what can you tell us about the red shirted man (Williamson)? I am betting that you know absolutely nothing. And also I wonder if you (Miles) have even asked Dale Myers to prove Bowers could see Hudson. You’d think that Dale would have photos to back up his theory. Have you asked Dale to prove HIS theory? If not, why not? Bill Miller ********** oh-no, not another Dale Myers cartoon! Will he provide Lightwave project files for this one? Miles, DMyers does not respond to laity - he has won a Emmy however! LMAO! While your post says nothing in the way of evidence (as usual) - your point is well taken. The Myers site that Miles likes to refer to mentioned two tress and in doing so, the Hudson tree was removed altogether while other trees further west remained. I find this action on Dale's part to be somewhat suspect and it does bring into question why he never bothered to present photos of the area himself so to make his case. somewhat suspect? Removing tree in a recreation? I'd say that's alteration wouldn't you? That also brings to mind "credibility" not only of past work but future work.... Oh... but that does lead to evidence there, Bill! Now remember, GaryM is watching this thread very,very VERY closely..... Edited October 31, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) At no point in Couch does Haygood appear on the right side of the shot like this. Small gif: 1min max on 56k http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...ouchHaygood.gif It's from CC#2, Has to be. Edited October 31, 2007 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I'm open to the idea of this, but to write it like it's a fact when there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure is a bit hard to swallow.Where did you get this idea from Ken? I've never heard of it before & the man standing next to Hudson in M5 looks late thirties - early fourties to me. No? In talking with Gary Mack one day I had mentioned that the guy standing next to Hudson looked like he was African American or Hispanic to me and Gary rightfully pointed out that there really isn't enough detail in Moorman's existing prints to make that determination. In fact, Gary didn't see the man as either. So who would better know how the man really looked - those of us looking at multi-generational images or the guy who sat only inches away from the man talking to him for a short time before the caravan came onto Elm Street ... I'd say Hudson would be the best witness to the man's age over anyone else. If you have proof of exactly who Hudson was talking to before the motorcade came by, who he sat next to & who repeatedly told him to lie down then please post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) At no point in Couch does Haygood appear on the right side of the shot like this.http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...arnellmaybe.jpg Hmm, maybe it's a crop?? Okay it is a crop from Couch. My apologies to Chris & Gary, I didn't have Quicktime installed but I just downloaded it & Chris' clips too, now I see the connection. Thanks gents. Edited October 31, 2007 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 The man to Hudson's left is never seen sitting down next to him in the photographic evidence, that is an assumption.The man who Hudson said he conversed with beforehand is also an unknown, it could of been either of those men. We have never seen any photographic evidence as to how Hudson got on the steps either, but if he told us how he managed to get there - who would think what he said was unreliable? One might keep in mind that what a person recalls in times where there was no stress may be more reliable than how they recall things in moments of much excitement and stress. So then, are you agreeing with Ken that the man is laying down behind the wall & shouting directions at Hudson from there? Can you tell me where this theory came from? As far as thinking that one man ran off because he was involved in the shooting ... on what grounds would one conclude this? Standing with his hands in his pockets involved him in what way? People think the dark complected man along with the umbrella man were involved in the assassination and they didn't immediately run away. So what purpose would a conspirator have for standing with Hudson with his hands in his pockets only to then run away in an attempt to get out of the line of fire??? I can't make sense of your above paragraph. Do you want to try again asking me a straight question or am I right in thinking you do not care what I think? 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