If The Hat Don't Fit

[Miles Scull]

I can't agree, unless you are talking ape length arms again. If you look at Paschall carefully, you will see no swinging left arm as you imply is seen in Altgens. I suggest you have another look at the film.

Duncan

Duncan

Is this Mystery Man?

[Bill Miller]

I can't agree, unless you are talking ape length arms again. If you look at Paschall carefully, you will see no swinging left arm as you imply is seen in Altgens. I suggest you have another look at the film.

Duncan

So I take it that you at least found someone - posed them - and discovered from the same angle that it couldn't be done in the 26 minutes since it took you to answer. I find that odd because anything done in that picture can be duplicated. And anyone who has seen a good print of that picture knows that one doesn't even need to waste their time considering that nonsense you posted.

I mean lets think about it ... You viewed the Pashcall film and you admit there is no third person there. You saw Zapruder get off the pedestal whereas he is seen more in profile as my memory recalls, thus we don't know really see him from the same view that he is was seen in the photo. So as part of the conspiracy - someone placed a figure into a photo that isn't seen in other assassination images such as Paschall and Mark Bell's film so to keep anyone from thinking what ... that there was no conspiracy??? Now do you feel that you are being logical here or do you need to maybe think about it some more?

Bill

Edited November 10, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Duke Lane]

Duke, you come across as too intelligent to not have followed the responses better than this. ... Bowers just happened to describe seeing a man in the RR yard at a time prior to the shooting as wearing a plaid shirt or jacket. ... Lee [bowers] wasn't descriptive enough to say that the man only wore a white shirt, nor could he say that the man hadn't put on a jacket and hat after Lee took his eye off of him to watch the caravan enter the plaza some 45 to 60 seconds before he looked back at the one man still in the same general area as before the shooting.

My impression is that you are likewise too intelligent to suggest that the man did. Bowers "couldn't" say that the man didn't, so I'd think anyone who didn't actually witness it would be hard pressed to say that he did.

Using a man who may have been wearing a jacket (or maybe a shirt or maybe a coat) to rule in him being the possible USSS fraud is disingenuous, and then saying that you didn't mean him, but the guy with the white shirt because, well, he could've put on a jacket since we can't rule out that he did, or that he may have also been wearing a jacket in addition to the white shirt Bowers described but "wasn't descriptive enough" to include ... well, I'm not sure what I'd call that.

I must say too, that unless I missed it - I didn't see where Smith said the man actually reached into a jacket.

Which is exactly why I use such phrases as "if memory serves" (as it sometimes - maybe even often - doesn't) so that nobody thinks I'm quoting scripture. Er, um, I mean "testimony!" (My wife would say that my memory never serves!)

So, overall, I would say that it's sometimes difficult to follow responses when so much vitriol is involved, of which you seem to be a significant source, unfortunately and in contradiction to your obvious intelligence. I'm not going to go down that road ....

Now that we've beaten around this bush a bit, can you explain exactly what your position is regarding the men that Lee Bowers saw and "hat man" and the USSS fraud and - while we're at it - Ed Hoffman's "shooter?" Are you suggesting that the "details" that Bowers "left out" for not being "descriptive enough" are the truisms that we're obviously missing here, or are you just playing with the cards that have been dealt?

I don't mind an "obvious conclusion" or a "logical extrapolation," but I do have issues with things that are made up of whole cloth.

Since you think I'm intelligent, please don't insult such intelligence - or defeat your own ability to evaluate it - by beating around the bush or erring - as sometimes seems to be your wont - by erring on the side of liberal interpretation rather than observed and sworn facts.

[Bill Miller]

My impression is that you are likewise too intelligent to suggest that the man did. Bowers "couldn't" say that the man didn't, so I'd think anyone who didn't actually witness it would be hard pressed to say that he did.

Using a man who may have been wearing a jacket (or maybe a shirt or maybe a coat) to rule in him being the possible USSS fraud is disingenuous, and then saying that you didn't mean him, but the guy with the white shirt because, well, he could've put on a jacket since we can't rule out that he did, or that he may have also been wearing a jacket in addition to the white shirt Bowers described but "wasn't descriptive enough" to include ... well, I'm not sure what I'd call that.

Bowers described two men behind the fence in the RR yard. How many men do you think were behind the fence that Bowers couldn't see?

I must say too, that unless I missed it - I didn't see where Smith said the man actually reached into a jacket.

Which is exactly why I use such phrases as "if memory serves" (as it sometimes - maybe even often - doesn't) so that nobody thinks I'm quoting scripture. Er, um, I mean "testimony!" (My wife would say that my memory never serves!)

I was aware that you were not quoting scripture and that's why I raised the issue so everyone would be aware of that point.

Now that we've beaten around this bush a bit, can you explain exactly what your position is regarding the men that Lee Bowers saw and "hat man" and the USSS fraud and - while we're at it - Ed Hoffman's "shooter?" Are you suggesting that the "details" that Bowers "left out" for not being "descriptive enough" are the truisms that we're obviously missing here, or are you just playing with the cards that have been dealt?

I think Mark Lane should have did a better job at interviewing Bowers. Mark was a lawyer and should have been much more thorough with Lee IMO. Now Bowers mentioned two men being between he and the mouth of the underpass - on the high ground - which puts them in the RR yard. I believe that these were the only two men Lee claimed to have seen along the west stretch of fence. Lee says one wore a plaid shirt or jacket and the other a white shirt and dark pants. Lee last saw these men some 45 seconds or so before the last shot(s) were fired. When Lee looks back - he sees one man and not the other. Lee claims his attention was drawn to the flash or smoke seen at the embankment, but he also said that one of the two men he told Ball about was too hard to see against the trees. (???????) Hoffman said the man at the fence wore a coat and hat. So why would a man in a white shirt be hard to see against the trees? And isn't it ironic that the person caught in Moorman's photo known as Hat Man (hat because he appears to be wearing a fedora) has backed away from the fence enough to only show the top section of his hat and Hoffman said the man he saw had fired a shot and moved back away from the fence before walking to the steam pipe. Do I know that everything I have said here by witnesses is exact - I don't. But I do know someone was responsible for that smoke and shot witnessed by Holland and others and Bowers said there were only two men behind the fence at the time of the President's arrival and after the kill shot there was only one still at his previous general location. So I ask myself what happened that allowed Bowers to see both men against the trees before the President's arrival into the plaza, but not after the shot from the fence??? Bowers didn't mention one of the men having a hat and coat before when he saw them 45 seconds or so earlier, but Moorman's photo shows someone wearing a hat at a place where not only Hoffman said he saw a shooter, but also where the HSCA said there was a 95% chance of certainty that a shot was fired from during the assassination. So in my opinion - either one of the two men left the area in a hurry not to be seen by Bowers only to be replaced by a third man in a coat and hat or missing man put on a jacket and hat and then got to the Hat Man location and fired a shot while Lee's attention was on the caravan. How intelligent it would be to do a slight clothing change at the last second so to make that earlier white shirt impossible to see at the moment of the shooting. Because didn't Lee say that the one man was TOO DARK to see against the trees? Makes me wonder if the man Lee told Ball about was wearing a dark coat all the time and had a white shirt underneath it. Lane is the blame for not getting more information out of Lee Bowers when he had the chance.

So I guess to make it simple - we have a limited amount of people seen behind the fence just moments before the shooting occurred. Bowers claims he lost track of one of the men because he was now too hard to see against the trees. I find that statement rather doubtful. Hoffman says he saw a man at the fence where the smoke was and that the man immediately moved away. Moorman's photo tends to support what Hoffman described. Whether one believes all of Ed's story or only a part of it ... I find that the man with the hat is supported by Moorman's photo and unless there was someone beside him with a gun - Hat Man fired the shot which also supports Ed's story on that one particular matter.

I don't mind an "obvious conclusion" or a "logical extrapolation," but I do have issues with things that are made up of whole cloth.

I have seen you sit quiet when a lot of that kind of stuff was being posted. Post being made claiming Bowers saw 'red plaid' ... Holland running immediately off the underpass when Dillard #3 taken about a minute post shooting shows differently ... those were classics made up of whole cloth.

Since you think I'm intelligent, please don't insult such intelligence

I didn't quantify an opinion as to your intelligence other than to be too smart to not understand a simple point being made.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Bill Miller

[J. Raymond Carroll]

high ground - which puts them in the RR yard. I believe that these were the only two men Lee claimed to have seen along the west stretch of fence. Lee says one wore a plaid shirt or jacket and the other a white shirt and dark pants. Lee last saw these men some 45 seconds or so before the last shot(s) were fired. When Lee looks back - he sees one man and not the other.

Could this tie in with the running man seen by J.C. Price?

24H222

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Mr. J. C. Price, Address: 2602 Astor, Dallas, Age 62, Phone No. WH 1-1940. Bus. Terminal Annex, Gen. Service RI 8-5611, Ext 3105.

Deposes and says:

This day at about 12:35 PM I was on the roof of the Terminal Annex Bldg on the NE corner when the presidential motorcade came down Main to Houston, North on Houston and then West on Elm. The car had proceeded west on Elm and was just a short distance from the Triple underpass, when I saw Gov. Connally slump over. I did not see the president as his car had gotten out of my view under the underpass.

There was a volley of shots, and then much later, maybe as much as five minutes later, another one. I saw one man run towards the passenger cars on the railroad siding after the volley of shots. This man had a white dress shirt, no tie and kahki [sic] colored trousers. His hair appeared to be long and dark and his agility running could be about 35 yrs of age. He had something in his hand. I couldn't be sure but it may have been a head piece.

J. C. Price

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963

/s/ [unintelligible]

Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

Mark Lane interview on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VaJQgLmeTg

[Bill Miller]

This man had a white dress shirt, no tie and kahki [sic] colored trousers. His hair appeared to be long and dark and his agility running could be about 35 yrs of age. He had something in his hand. I couldn't be sure but it may have been a head piece.

J. C. Price

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963

/s/ [unintelligible]

Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

Hello Ray. A headpiece certainly could be a hat and a hat is seen just over the fence line in Moorman's photo as you is looking at a fence running along the high ground.

Bill

[Duke Lane]

My impression is that you are likewise too intelligent to suggest that the man did. Bowers "couldn't" say that the man didn't, so I'd think anyone who didn't actually witness it would be hard pressed to say that he did.

Using a man who may have been wearing a jacket (or maybe a shirt or maybe a coat) to rule in him being the possible USSS fraud is disingenuous, and then saying that you didn't mean him, but the guy with the white shirt because, well, he could've put on a jacket since we can't rule out that he did, or that he may have also been wearing a jacket in addition to the white shirt Bowers described but "wasn't descriptive enough" to include ... well, I'm not sure what I'd call that.

Bowers described two men behind the fence in the RR yard. How many men do you think were behind the fence that Bowers couldn't see?

An indeterminate number: he didn't see them, so how can we count them? Does his not seeing someone preclude their being there? Does the possibility of someone being there prove that anyone was?

Hoffman said the man at the fence wore a coat and hat. So why would a man in a white shirt be hard to see against the trees? And isn't it ironic that the person caught in Moorman's photo known as Hat Man (hat because he appears to be wearing a fedora) has backed away from the fence enough to only show the top section of his hat and Hoffman said the man he saw had fired a shot and moved back away from the fence before walking to the steam pipe.

Still quoting Hoffman when it's now pretty damned obvious that he wasn't where he claimed to have been? Read the facts here.

... Lane is the blame for not getting more information out of Lee Bowers when he had the chance.

So I guess to make it simple - we have a limited amount of people seen behind the fence just moments before the shooting occurred. Bowers claims he lost track of one of the men because he was now too hard to see against the trees. I find that statement rather doubtful. Hoffman says he saw a man at the fence where the smoke was and that the man immediately moved away. Moorman's photo tends to support what Hoffman described. Whether one believes all of Ed's story or only a part of it ... I find that the man with the hat is supported by Moorman's photo and unless there was someone beside him with a gun - Hat Man fired the shot which also supports Ed's story on that one particular matter.

You leave out the option of not believing any of Ed's story, and the obvious other side to the equation that Ed's story simply includes something other people have talked about for years. But this isn't about Ed, as bad a "witness" as he is to cite.

One of Lane's biggest issues in RTJ the book was how WC counsel cut people off from making explanations of things that might've been important, and definitely "shame on him" if he didn't better prepare for the occasion. In what limited defense I might raise for him (we're not related, incidentally ... but that should be fairly obvious, eh?), what additional questions you and I and others might think up after he's asked his aren't really his "fault" for not having thought of first.

It's been a while since I've seen the film - I gave my copy to a friend - and have not seen the unedited transcript or footage, I vaguely remember on several occasions when watching it wondering why in hell he didn't have someone show something, or go where they were talking about, rather than just describe or point to it. I suppose if either of us had done it, it would've been more perfect, but still far short of someone's expectations!

I don't mind an "obvious conclusion" or a "logical extrapolation," but I do have issues with things that are made up of whole cloth.

I have seen you sit quiet when a lot of that kind of stuff was being posted. Post being made claiming Bowers saw 'red plaid' ... Holland running immediately off the underpass when Dillard #3 taken about a minute post shooting shows differently ... those were classics made up of whole cloth.

If I spent time responding to each and every thing that is made up of whole cloth on this forum, I wouldn't have time to sleep, much less earn a living! What difference does it make anyway? I spent considerable time unspinning one whole-cloth story, but it hasn't done a thing about it still being quoted as holy writ. (I suppose it's my fault for mentioning "Ed Hoffman's 'shooter'" in the first place!) Some people are just hell-bent on seeing things their way, rightly or wrongly, which is okay, I suppose, if they can be convinced otherwise by facts. It's those that can't or won't who are frustrating, and I don't see much of anything to be gained by hitting them in the head if all it does is hurt your baseball bat. It's why I haven't mentioned Ed Hoffman in any of this.

[Duke Lane]

... He had something in his hand. I couldn't be sure but it may have been a head piece.

J. C. Price

I had to laugh on seeing this because I've just been perusing Michael Kurtz' Crime of the Century in which he says that Price had seen someone running, carrying something that may have been a gun. So, I checked the endnotes on this and found the reference to ... Julia Mercer's two-page affidavit! (Price's is only about half-a-page, and is several pages after the reference given.)

[Ed O'Hagan]

These are the hat people with cameras, of course, grouped directly below it. Definitely a very large hat, or very small cameramen.

[Alan Healy]

X

Edited November 12, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

the hat shape only comes from the Moorman5(M5) in Thompson's "SSID" correct?

The general shape is still there in later copies of M5 but the "real" hat shape is no longer sharp.

From what I gather - it was the original and first generation copies made from the original like the one offered by United Press or World Wide Press that were the sharpest images. I don't want to misstate this, but I was thinking that Gary Mack mentioned UPI's print being so good and Groden says that Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg had the two best prints he had ever seen, which Robert cited World Wide Press for one of the good ones.

I know that some say that the print of the guys on the steps in the drum scan is sharp, but the men on the steps are nowhere as sharp as they would have appeared in the copy or copies that Josiah had. As far as what ever picture you are showing ... it doesn't appear to be taken from exactly where Moorman was and Josiah had known what was or was not changed with the RR yard when he did his study. Note the pitch of the fence in Moorman's photo and then in the other one you posted ... ones slanted from the uphill view and the other one is more horizontal along the top of the fence line. So it would be best to hear it from Josiah to minimize mistakes. I will email Josiah and see if he can't offer a few sentences that might better explain things and I will post what ever he tells me.

Bill

Edited November 11, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

An indeterminate number: he didn't see them, so how can we count them? Does his not seeing someone preclude their being there? Does the possibility of someone being there prove that anyone was?

The assassination evidence can be handled in many ways. I try to stay within the confines of the evidence that the Commission and HSCA had to work with. For instance, there could be a case made for several more shots just by citing Millican, or from witnesses seeing sparks on the asphalt, or from dents in the chrome stripping above the windshield, but when I reference the shooting I tend to stay in the three shot scenario, while once in a while bringing in the 4th shot possibility. So yes, there could have been an army of men in the RR yard all shooting at the President, but Bowers offers two men to work with - Holland and the witnesses tell of hearing one shot and seeing one plume of smoke come through the trees, and I don't believe Ed lied about being on the highway and I find it hard to believe that he had pushed for a lie detector test to be given to him if he knew that he couldn't pass it.

If I spent time responding to each and every thing that is made up of whole cloth on this forum, I wouldn't have time to sleep, much less earn a living! What difference does it make anyway? I spent considerable time unspinning one

It doesn't make any difference to many of us - we just take notice of it.

[Miles Scull]

I find it hard to believe that he had pushed for a lie detector test to be given to him if he knew that he couldn't pass it.

I find it hard to believe that he had pushed for a lie detector test to be given to him if he knew that he couldn't pass it.

This is a misstatement of the facts.

The implication is that Hoffman made persistent efforts to secure a polygraph.

Not so.

Also, the alleged expense of a polygraph as being prohibitive doesn't wash. The pro bono services of a polygrapher easily could have been obtained any time over a thirty year period.

The polygraph argument flies like an Emu.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

This is a misstatement of the facts.

The implication is that Hoffman made persistent efforts to secure a polygraph.

Not so.

Also, the alleged expense of a polygraph as being prohibitive doesn't wash. The pro bono services of a polygrapher easily could have been obtained any time over a thirty year period.

The polygraph argument flies like an Emu.

[/color]

What's with the Ostrich image ... has that replaced chicken?

As far as what Ed did and did not do pertaining to having a polygraph done, please take all the time you need to tell us what factual data you have to support what you said because I am sure by now after all the exposure you have gotten concerning the past trolling you have done that you have certainly turned over a new leaf. The clock is ticking - let's hear it!

Bill Miller

Edited November 12, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

This is a misstatement of the facts.

The implication is that Hoffman made persistent efforts to secure a polygraph.

Not so.

Also, the alleged expense of a polygraph as being prohibitive doesn't wash. The pro bono services of a polygrapher easily could have been obtained any time over a thirty year period.

The polygraph argument flies like an Emu.

Miles,

Get off your lazy behind and do a 'search' over at Lancer for the data on Hoffman and my efforts to get him a polygraph. Maybe search under the name Al Carrier - at the time a 20+ year police officer who assisted me in finding the institution that I ended up with which to my understanding was the only place in the entire country at that date who could test someone with Ed's handicap. You have to be one of the biggest jokes on this forum and I mean that literally. I have not the time to go look it up, but there is a place in Chicago that Al helped me find an examiner that was known to be able to polygraph "deaf mutes". This wasn't a simple task where they merely polygraph your average person and if you'd of done the slightest amount of research on this subject before posting your sorry pathetic remarks, then you might have known about this.

It was Ed's family that I learned Ed saying so many years ago that he wanted to prove that he was telling the truth, but in the 60's there was no one that knew how to go about testing someone who could not speak or hear. The family said that several times over the years when this would come up that it was always the same story. It took me a lot of calls and contacts to go through before I found this place in Chicago.

The person in charge out of Chicago said they could not travel to Ed to do the examination, thus the cost of the examination and Ed's travel expenses for him and another person to accompany him was around $5000.00. Now knowing that some xxxxx like yourself who wouldn't spend a nickel to call Mark Lane when spoon-fed the contact information you were harping about at one point - I cannot see how you have any right to bitch about others and what they are willing to spend to accomplish such a feat. As usual you are trolling by blowing off your big mouth about something you know nothing about, nor check into it before spouting off. You are one of these people who think they have a right to make accusations first without giving a damn about the consequences after the fact. It was I and I alone who was willing to flip the bill - certainly not you - not anyone but I was willing to use his hard earned money to get the job done. It was at the 11th hour of trying to set this whole thing up that the man out of Chicago who was helping me accomplish this test for Ed and who would be giving it had asked if Ed takes any medications. I didn't know? I then got a list of Ed's medicines and the examiner said that Ed's heart medication could influence the test, thus making it invalid. I spoke with the family and discovered that this was a medicine that Ed has to take for a heart condition, thus my hands were tied and I found my efforts dead in the water.

If your style is to remain too damned lazy to actually do any research, then go over to Lancer and PM Carrier for I am sure Al would remember the name of the Institution I contacted - you are not worth my time to look it up for you. This is not the first time in recent post where you made accusations without first getting the facts straight. It's irresponsible and I am rather surprised that you have been allowed to get away with it so far. You are a classic example of the definition of a forum xxxxx IMO.

All I need is 2 seconds to tell you that you tried to help Hoffman, but that you didn't have the thought that you should apply to many & various polygraphers until you found the polygraher who would act pro bono.

You shirked the obvious task.

Like I said ... you continually blow off your big mouth in an attempt to incite trouble ... Shame on those who allow you to get away with it. Debra Conway writes this about a forum xxxxx, "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 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."

IMO you owe Ed Hoffman and apology for accusing people first without bothering to know the facts first.

Let's consider that you appeared on this forum under a false & deceptive mask (that of Larry Peters) in order to traduce Jack White. (see: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...30&start=30 ] )

This was your bogus avatar:

Now this is the second time in one post that you are blowing off your fat mouth about things you know nothing about. I have several friends on these forums that share the same interest in the assassination images as I do ... that's how we got so close. Most of them do not have the collection I have, but I have always said that anyone can use any and all clips and images I have posted or sent to them. Wim Dankbar being the last person I have shared my work with for a project he is working on. Now if you had continue trolling that thread you will come across a post someone made where they did something smart - they captured the forum screen at a time that both Larry and I were online at the same time. By the way, I'll be flying back Home in a few days and within the week I will go up to the logging camp and visit Larry. I want to tell him what he is missing on the Ed Forum concerning some trolling jerk who has a thing for him. I'm sure he'll find it as stupid as the comment Jack made about he and I shaking hands as if we were conspiring to get Jack. By the way. Larry is older than I am ... when I go see him again - I'll get another photo and post it ... you won't believe how much he has aged.

Bill Miller

Edited November 12, 2007 by Bill Miller