Question For Josiah : Hatman 3 and a bit years later

[Bill Miller]

If you pay close attention ... you will see that the man in the white shirt was still visible to Bowers and it was the plaid coated man that he is inferring to being too hard to see where he had gone off to. If I have missed something, then by all means - correct me.

Bill

What a load of crap Bill, I think you must have been trained by the same person who trained the Parrot. If you read your garbage above, it completely contradicts what Bowers actually said. The fact is, that He Said That He Could NOT Identify The Dark Dressed Man,......... so, in any court in any land, on any planet, in any universe, ( Apart from your private one ) this Bowers observation would be seen as evidence that the dark dressed man who was too hard to distinguish from the trees was an unknown person to Bowers, and not someone he had seen earlier like the plaid coated man. I suggest you go feed the Parrot some crackers, or should that be the other way around?

Duncan

No matter which man Bowers is referring to at different times ... he described one in a white shirt and the other wearing a plaid jacket ... neither description fits it being a cop in uniform - hat included. Ball specifically asked Bowers about those two men ... no way out of that one.

Not in the history of the research of the assassination has anyone made such a ridiculous claim like the one you once again have polluted the forum with.

Lee Bowers said, "One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket." Are you assuming that the plaid jacket wasn't dark?

Edited April 28, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

As you say, It's different times, so the dark dressed man is and remains an unknown person

Who cares if he is known or not ... these are the same two men that Ball asked about. Go back and pay attention to Ball's questions.

Totally irelevant...neither fits the description of the dark dressed man, as Bowers could not make an identification of the dark dressed man, so still the dark dressed man remains an unknown person.

Ball asked Bowers about the two men he described seeing just prior to the President's arrival. Bowers only separated the two by size and one wearing a white shirt and dark pants - the other a plaid jacket. You must be assuming that one man was wearing a light plaid jacket, but the fact is that Bowers was asked about two men - the same two men he described to Mr. Ball. A dark plaid jacket could be hard to see against the trees ... a white shirt would not be too dark IMO. You are trying to avoid the only two choices and in doing so you are the only person I have ever heard try to turn one of those two descriptions into a cop. All you have done is hang on the word 'dark' when Lee mentioned one man's clothing against the background. So I respectably disagree with your opinion on this matter.

Ball asked about him seeing anyone in one particular area and Bowers responded ...

Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.

Then Ball asked if any of the two men were still in that area when the cop arrived and again Bowers replied ...

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

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

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

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

Bowers last remark tells that the man who was too hard to see was the man in the plaid jacket because he could still see the man in the white shirt and dark pants. So how tough was that to understand. (sigh~).

Totally irelevant once again...The dark dressed man at the time of the shooting remains unidentified by Bowers

Ball didn't ask Bowers to give him the mens name - addresses or phone numbers ... he just asked Bowers if those two men were still in the area where he saw them last.

Not in the history of the research of the assassination, has anyone defended a position that any court in the universe would throw out quicker than the time it takes you to think through things logically, ie, about 1.2 seconds

I have a felling that you have court experience, but not any that would help you here. I think that if you read my responses above, you may forget wanting to pretend to know what the courts would and would not do.

Bill

Edited April 29, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

It doesn't matter how many ways you try to spin it Bill, the simple truth is that your are wrong.

I'll give you an example of why you are wrong. Let's make up an imaginary crime with an imaginary witness and imaginary suspects.

The scene :

Bill Miller is standing on a street corner trying to sell some of Robert Groden's books.

2 Minutes Before The Crime :

Bill Miller observes from a distance, a tall dark dressed man with an eye patch assaulting Robert Groden who was on his way to the bank to deposit $5 from Millers previous days sales of the book. That's the amount left after Miller receives his commission. The man according to Miller had an eye patch, and could clearly be identified as Long John Silver, the damning evidence being the parrot on his shoulder, who according to Miller, must be considered an accomplice in the crime as it was tossing hard stale crackers at Groden while Silver carried out the assault to steal the $5.

2 Minutes Later :

With Groden lying unconscious on the ground, and Miller frozen rigid to the spot through shock, another man, who is by Millers own admission, unidentifiable because Groden had fallen partially out of view behind a tree after the attack, and the man who is also partially hidden by the tree and it's shadows, approaches the injured Groden to have a look at the scene. For whatever reason, this man leaves the scene in a hurry. A bird is seen flying from the tree as the second man runs from the scene, leaving a different kind of deposit on Groden's head as it leaves the area. The bird heads in the same direction as the running man, lands on his left shoulder, and turns the same corner out of Millers view.

The question.

Were the two men, the same man who attacked Groden? and was the deposit dropping bird the same bird who threw the crackers?

Duncan

Ps.....I will only consider realistic offers for the rights to this script. Hollywood here I come

Duncan,

Good point & excellently made!

One man, who he was, what he did, where he went, is not determinable.

Bowers could have missed him at 33 feet.

But since he WAS not a dwarf, he was NOT at 14 feet from the fence corner.

!

Edited April 29, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

Good point & excellently made!

One man, who he was, what he did, where he went, is not determinable.

Bowers could have missed him at 33 feet.

But since he WAS not a dwarf, he was NOT at 14 feet from the fence corner.

Thanks, Miles ... your not so well thought out remarks are always appreciated, especially when trying to support one of Duncan's claims. By it being you that agrees with Duncan ... it helps discredit his reasoning IMO. For instance, you mention Bowers not knowing where the second man went ... and I won't argue with that point. But what difference does it matter if the guy left the Plaza by way of foot - horse and carriage - or by hot-air balloon ... Bowers described both men's clothing just before the shooting started and when Ball asked Lee if those two men were still at their earlier location following the shots ... Bowers said that one of them was ... the other he couldn't see.

So let us recap ... Bowers said one man wore a white shirt and the other a plaid jacket. Bowers tells Ball that one of the men was still visible immediately after the shooting and he says it was the white shirted man. That means that Bowers wasn't able to see where the plaid jacketed man had gone to. So maybe you can tell us how you relate a policeman's uniform to a man wearing a white shirt or a plaid jacket ... and please try to do so by being serious for a change.

Bill Miller

Edited April 29, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I will only consider realistic offers for the rights to this script. Hollywood here I come

Zellers maybe ... Hollywood ... no!

[Miles Scull]

I will only consider realistic offers for the rights to this script. Hollywood here I come

Zellers maybe ... Hollywood ... no!

For my part, I care not: I say little; but when

time shall serve, there shall be smiles; but that

shall be as it may.

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

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

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

Cristian David said something about Sarti possibly wearing a uniform. Hunt said a French gunman.

A pickup parked at 33' would have hidden a man from Bowers. But at 14' there was no pickup.

If Bowers had seen Arnie, which he did not, he would have seen a light khaki. A dark uniform would be dark blue. Here's a mock-up:

Duncan's point is that a man dropped out of view. Bowers is saying that he didn't see everything. But Hoffman's sniper was moving up & down the fence before & after the shooting. Bowers did not see this.

If Files was involved, his drawing shows 33'.

For BM's edification: the plaid jacket was reversible, as Files' was also.

[Bill Miller]

For my part, I care not: I say little; but when

time shall serve, there shall be smiles; but that

shall be as it may.

A better phrasing would be that 'you have in the past responded a lot, but said little'. Then when you do say something ... its something so untrue like how Duncan was consulting Mack and Groden or how Bowers had a line of sight to the men on the steps that its an insult IMO to the forums purpose to educate people.

Cristian David said something about Sarti possibly wearing a uniform. Hunt said a French gunman.

It matters not what Christian David said ... the discussion here was about the two men Bowers saw and what they were wearing.

Edited April 29, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

An astounding post Miles, and a perfectly logical reasoned explanation for those who find Bill's reasoning confusing.

This post will be remembered for it's brilliant simplicity and accuracy.

Duncan

Thanks, Duncan; my post is meant to question the validity of the Hatman illusion.

There is a fatal attraction to the Hatman pied piper.

The facts seem to fit at first, but then the cracks are to be seen & the edifice crumbles.

Looks OK at first the Hatman procession, but then one ultimately sees the leader of the parade:

[Bill Miller]

Didn't Josiah Thompson originally come up with Hatman??? Is that who the clown is supposed to represent?

Consider the source, Kathy ... consider the source.

Interesting that Wim Dankbaar puts Files in the Hatman location. Evidently Files, at one time, put himself there or (Dankbaar would not have said it I assume)

We are told that Files is at 33 ft. ( You might want to get with Wim on that.) I find it amazing that witness testimony is raked over the coals (even to the point of calling Gordon Arnold "Arnie"--he is the only witness nicknamed like this that I know of), but anything related to Jimmy is explained and reexplained, and that is supposed to be perfectly understandable.

Miles has a history of just posting incorrect data so to xxxxx out a thread. Much of the time he doesn't even appear to have bothered to do the slightest thing to at least attempt to make a factual response. Two of his past shenanigans were mentioned in one of my responses ... one in support of Duncan by purposely misleading the readers by making the false claim that Duncan had been consulting Mack and Groden. I hope everyone that has read the points I made pertaining to whether the two men Lee told Ball about could account for being Duncan's floating cop torso ... and then Duncan's responses (with Miles full support) will look under the surface and try to understand where these guys are coming from. Never in the 44 years following the WC hearings has anyone ever attempted to evade the facts like these two in this thread.

They claim to have made things simple. Here is what's simple IMO ...

Bowers mentions two men to Mr. Ball. Lee Bowers even describes some article(s) of these mens clothing so to differentiate these two men to Mr. Ball. Bowers didn't mention three men at this one particular area. So one wore a white shirt and the other a plaid jacket. Ball asked Bowers if these two men were still at the same location following the shots and Bowers says he saw only one of them and it was the white shirted man.

Next I ask Duncan how if the other man wore a plaid jacket ... how could Duncan turn him into a cop. Duncan's reply was some nonsense about how the other man was unknown, but Duncan's response had nothing to do with turning plaid clothing into a cops clothing. So how does Miles help ... he tells us how Files said he had a reversible jacket, which still doesn't say how someone like Bowers, who Miles made out to be such an eagle-eye so to see plaid on clothing from 300 feet away, couldn't see someone from only a fraction of the distance that reversed a coat ... nor does it explain the original issue and that was how one of the men Bowers claimed to have seen could be turned into a cop.

[David G. Healy]

Didn't Josiah Thompson originally come up with Hatman??? Is that who the clown is supposed to represent?

Consider the source, Kathy ... consider the source.

well, did Josiah come up with hatman or not?

David Healy

And NO I have NOT received an annual Mary Ferrel Award -- so THERE

[Bill Miller]

David Healy

And NO I have NOT received an annual Mary Ferrel Award -- so THERE

David, just with you in mind I have asked that the Mary Ferrel Foundation offer an award for categories in 'double talking' and 'most consistent at responding without ever offering any JFK related data' ... two categories that you will be sure to receive awards for.

[Bill Miller]

Well firstly, I have NEVER said that the 33ft figure was a cop. The cop tag is a creation of your making intended for ridicule purposes only, although a cop cover would be a perfect ploy.. Feel free to research previous posts here or elsewhere for the recorded record of me saying he was a cop.

Duncan

What were you implying in these outlines and illustrations that YOU posted ... was this supposed to be the outline of an ice-cream man - a milk-man - Miss Daisy's driver ... or were you inferring that it was someone in a cops uniform??? (see below)

[Bill Miller]

That was funny Bill, credit where credit is due.

As I said in the above post, I have never said that it was a cop. If you choose to believe it's a cop, that's ok with me. My view is that it is probably someone disguised in a cop's outfit.

Duncan

I love it when you guys try and evade points so to not have to address the questions. So OK ... you don't want to say that you inferred that your shooter was a cop, but will admit that you believe that it is someone dressed in a cops clothing. I have no magical way to tell if people in cops clothing are real cops or frauds, but I accept your reluctant answer so not to get involved in your game of irrelevant hair splitting.

Now once again ... how does someone in a plaid jacket turn into someone "disguised in a cops outfit"????? As I recall, this was the question before the dancing music started and my point still stands and awaits a non-evasive answer for a change.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

To me that makes more sense than someone disguising themseves as your Dick Tracy Hatman in order to make an inconspicuous departure from the area.

Duncan

Not my Dick Tracy Hat Man, but Ed Hoffman's.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...mode=full#40894

In the linked thread seen above, YOU claim that Hoffman saw your floating Man, presumably disguised as a cop', but it was Ed Hoffman who came to me at a Lancer conference and said that the Fedora shape seen over the fence in the image that I used was the same man that he saw. Once again you have misstated the facts so to fit your ridiculous claim.

Miles as you know has Bowers able to see plaid designs on clothing at 300 feet away and yet Bowers described to Ball as having seen only two men in the area in question and neither of Lee's descriptions match anyone "disguised in a cops outfit". So Hoffman got it wrong ... eagle-eye Bowers got it wrong ... and only hair splitting Duncan got it right by finding a cluster of foliage that he could draw a shape in that doesn't appear to have a lower body. That to accomplish the problem with the missing lower body ... you claimed it to be 'washed out' and yet Hat Man didn't wash out, nor did the train tower seen between the fence and the overhanging tree foliage. I guess that leaves us with 'selective washout' so to hide an elevated man disguised in a cops clothing who neither Bowers or Hoffman claimed to have seen. Amazing job, Duncan!

BTW, the image that I used at the Lancer conference and that Hoffman pointed to in reference to the man he saw is seen below ...

Bill

Edited April 30, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Duncan,

I hope you don't mind a minor addition to your animation

chris