Question For Josiah : Hatman 3 and a bit years later

[Miles Scull]

Not at all chris, the hat's about half that size imo, but I get your point

Thanks

This drawing shows how high above the fence Hatman's hat has to be. But in Moorman Hatman looks like he is examining the north side of the fence for a possible termite infestation. Either that or Hatman tossed his hat onto the picket slat points & sat down for a smoke.

Conclusion: it's simply not a hat at all.

The plaid jacket reverses to dark blue with chevrons, in Sarti's uniform disguise.

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

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

chris

Might as well jump on the 'I don't understand perspective train'. Any idea how large a man's head would be if that large at the distance you are talking???

[Bill Miller]

I have not misstated facts. I believe Hoffman got the location wrong

And you must think that Hoffman got the clothing wrong as well. You seem to have the attention span of a barn hen. You make a off-the-wall claim that Hoffman got the location wrong while missing that his clothing description doesn't fit your claim either. This is just why the more serious researchers think posting here has become a waste of time.

Bowers did not give a description of the dark dressed man who he failed to identify. He therefore could not tell if this unknown man was wearing a hat or not

Same narrow-sighted answer as above. I have never seen a plaid cops uniform ... have you???

That's correct, unless you can show me a Moorman copy that doesn't have washout

None of them show a washout. That is something that you invented. If there was a washout from exposure, then it would not be selective, but uniform across the rest of the area above the fence. When someone like Mack or Groden tell you different because they have seen Moorman's original .. you pretend not to hear them and just continue on with you nutty claim. It is that kind of thing that has hurt the purpose of this forum in many peoples mind.

Below was the BDM until you washed his image out with some of your nonsense.

You changed the shape of everything within your area of alteration of the image.

The fence color and detail never changed in Moorman's photo ... you simply took the sunlight on the fence where it meets the color of the sky in a B&W photo and claimed it is washed out so to try and push a claim that wasn't even supported by the witnesses. You have done the same thing by saying that Hoffman saw your man while ignoring that Ed said that his man wore a fedora and wasn't dressed like a cop. What you are doing is a sham and shame on you for bringing that garbage to the forum.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The plaid jacket reverses to dark blue with chevrons, in Sarti's uniform disguise.[/b][/color]

So is it your new position that the plaid jacketed man that Bowers spoke of was not on the steps as you carried on about for so long, or are you just going to xxxxx that guy over to the RR yard and hope no one sees what you have done???

[Miles Scull]

The plaid jacket reverses to dark blue with chevrons, in Sarti's uniform disguise.

So is it your new position that the plaid jacketed man that Bowers spoke of was not on the steps as you carried on about for so long, or are you just going to xxxxx that guy over to the RR yard and hope no one sees what you have done???

So is it your new position that the plaid jacketed man that Bowers spoke of was not on the steps as you carried on about for so long, or are you just going to xxxxx that guy over to the RR yard and hope no one sees what you have done??? - MILLER

So is it your new position that the plaid jacketed man that Bowers spoke of was not on the steps as you carried on about for so long,

This is a gross misstatement of the facts. It must be Miller time. Bowers spoke of two men being located in the VICINITY of the stairs, not "on" the steps.

A fudge?

or are you just going to xxxxx that guy over to the RR yard and hope no one sees what you have done???

Again, cryptozoological conceptual frame is not appropriate here. However, in fairness let's look at matters from that perspective for a moment. Bowers states that the plaid man was walking in & out of sight behind the fence. Since he was out of sight behind the fence, Bowers did not see what he did or exactly where he went. So, at the time of the shooting where was he? To put this in BM's frame one can justly ask the question: where is Big Foot when no one sees him?

For example, did anyone but Bowers talk about a flash of light?

Well, then, what is this? Lightening?

Edit: adjust underline

Edited May 1, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

BM) 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.

Duncan) I don't believe I said that.....Quote me.

First you try to evade the point I made about the two men Bowers described not being a cop by saying you only said he was disguised as a cop, which didn't address the clothing description difference. So rather than to address the point I made and only after I posted past illustrations that you had made inferring that it was someone dressed like a cop ... this is what you said, "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." If that response wasn't a text book case of dancing around an issue, then I don't know of a better example.

Now you want to dance some more by trying to say that you didn't come out and say that a man in a plaid jacket turned into someone "disguised as a cop". OK ... I'll spoon feed you once again about the things you imply through your ridiculous responses.

I first mentioned that Bowers saw only two men behind the fence and that neither was dressed like a cop. You then replied to the men Bowers saw as maybe he did see your Cop figure. Your remark is quoted, "Maybe he did see him"

Next I responded by saying, "OK Duncan .. you have my curiosity going ... Bowers described seeing two men ... did either of his descriptions fit someone in a police uniform and wearing a hat near the fence at that location ... I have not seen where Lee made any such reference."

Note that I only mentioned Bowers not seeing anyone in a police uniform in the area of the two men that Lee Bowers described to Mr. Ball. It was then that you responded by citing something Bowers said pertaining to the two men he described to Mr. Ball when you bold lettered the following from Bowers testimony .... "The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees."

The dance was underway! Then I responded by asking the following question ... "Duncan, is there any reason why you didn't mention that earlier in Bowers testimony ... he had described the two men this way ... "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.""

The point I made had nothing to do with anything other than the clothing that Bowers described these two men wearing was nothing like that of a policeman, thus what justification did you have for saying that Bowers may have seen your floating cop figure. Your response was, "Bowers by his own admission could not identify him ..." The issue wasn't whether Lee Bowers could ID anyone, but rather how was it that you could think that a man in a white shirt or a man in a plaid jacket could be turned into someone dressed like a cop. So rather than you simply addressing that simple question that you obviously knew didn't fare well with your initial remark ... you evaded it.

Then despite my driving the point home again and again that regardless of whether Bowers could ID either men ... he still had described articles of their clothing to Mr. Ball, which DID NOT match that worn by a cop or someone disguised as a cop. Your response, "I don't believe I said that.....Quote me."

It is obvious that a straight answer isn't going to be forthcoming from you and I leave the above summary as my proof of this. The fact is that Bowers described only two men and neither description fit someone dressed like a cop ... disguised or real.

Bill Miller

Edited May 1, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

BM) So is it your new position that the plaid jacketed man that Bowers spoke of was not on the steps as you carried on about for so long,

MS) This is a gross misstatement of the facts. It must be Miller time. Bowers spoke of two men being located in the VICINITY of the stairs, not "on" the steps.

There is something in Bowers testimony that shows you to be incorrect when seen in conjunction with Hudson's testimony and even though it has been mentioned before ... I will mention it once again to expose your attempt to continue to mislead the readers of this forum .... Your position is that Bowers must have seen these two men moving in and out of his line of sight, but Lee Bowers told Mr. Ball that these two men were 10 to 15 feet apart as the caravan came down towards them. (see below)

Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.

Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?

Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.

What proves you to be incorrect as to who Bowers was talking about comes from Hudson's testimony where he says that he and the man next to him were sitting next to one another and talking when the caravan came into the Plaza and they merely stood up on the steps together. (see below)

Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right .....

To summarize what you have done ... Bowers time stamped when he saw the two men in question when he said they were standing 10 to 15 feet apart and watching the caravan come down towards them. You have gone out of your way to try and make people believe that Bowers was talking about the men seen on the steps in the assassination images, but at a point they were moving in and out of his line of sight. Emmett Hudson says that he and one of the men had been sitting on the steps and talking and didn't rise to their feet until the caravan turned onto Elm Street. This discrepancy should tell a reasonable researcher that we ARE NOT talking about the same people. Hudson was not 10 to 15 feet apart from the man sitting next to him when the caravan entered the plaza, nor were they standing. Groden, Mack, and Kathy Beckett have all shown that Lee Bowers could not see anyone sitting or standing on the steps at any time. So to simplify ... when the caravan starts towards these men ... they are standing 10 to 15 feet apart ... Hudson says the man with him, which you try to make out to be one of the men Bowers spoke about, was sitting right next to him ON THE STEPS, which could not have been seen from the tower when the caravan came onto Elm Street.

The above is evidence that a small child could follow and understand, but we are to believe that you are not purposely misstating the evidence and ignoring this crucial point in the name of truth rather than to be purposely misleading the reader for what ever agenda you may have. You are too smart to not be able to see the error in your claim, so one must consider the latter option in my opinion.

By the way, the blue lines circled on the Nix frame are scratches in the copy print being used in this thread. The Museum has two first generation prints of the Nix film and those scratchers are not present on those two copies.

Bill Miller

Edited May 2, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

BM) So is it your new position that the plaid jacketed man that Bowers spoke of was not on the steps as you carried on about for so long,

MS) This is a gross misstatement of the facts. It must be Miller time. Bowers spoke of two men being located in the VICINITY of the stairs, not "on" the steps.

There is something in Bowers testimony that shows you to be incorrect when seen in conjunction with Hudson's testimony and even though it has been mentioned before ... I will mention it once again to expose your attempt to continue to mislead the readers of this forum .... Your position is that Bowers must have seen these two men moving in and out of his line of sight, but Lee Bowers told Mr. Ball that these two men were 10 to 15 feet apart as the caravan came down towards them. (see below)

Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.

Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?

Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.

What proves you to be incorrect as to who Bowers was talking about comes from Hudson's testimony where he says that he and the man next to him were sitting next to one another and talking when the caravan came into the Plaza and they merely stood up on the steps together. (see below)

Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right .....

To summarize what you have done ... Bowers time stamped when he saw the two men in question when he said they were standing 10 to 15 feet apart and watching the caravan come down towards them. You have gone out of your way to try and make people believe that Bowers was talking about the men seen on the steps in the assassination images, but at a point they were moving in and out of his line of sight. Emmett Hudson says that he and one of the men had been sitting on the steps and talking and didn't rise to their feet until the caravan turned onto Elm Street. This discrepancy should tell a reasonable researcher that we ARE NOT talking about the same people. Hudson was not 10 to 15 feet apart from the man sitting next to him when the caravan entered the plaza, nor were they standing, nor were they 10 to 15 feet apart at the time. Groden, Mack, and Kathy Beckett have all shown that Lee Bowers could not see anyone sitting or standing on the steps at any time. So to simplify ... when the caravan starts towards these men ... they are standing 10 to 15 feet apart ... Hudson says the man with him, which you try to make out to be one of the men Bowers spoke about, was sitting right next to him ON THE STEPS, which could not have been seen from the tower when the caravan came onto Elm Street.

The above is evidence that a small child could follow and understand, but we are to believe that you are not purposely misstating the evidence and ignoring this crucial point in the name of truth rather then to be purposely misleading the reader for what ever agenda you may have. You are too smart to not be able to see the error in your claim, so one must consider the latter option in my opinion.

By the way, the blue lines circled on the Nix frame are scratches in the copy print being used in this thread. The Museum has two first generation prints of the Nix film and those scratchers are not present on those two copies.

Bill Miller

There is something in Bowers testimony that shows you to be incorrect

No, there is nothing. You misstate the facts.

Your position is that Bowers must have seen these two men moving in and out of his line of sight,

Good insight! Yes, that is exactly my position. Yes, Bowers saw the men when he looked at them. When he did not look at the men, Bowers did not see them. You are correctly stating the facts & my position.

but Lee Bowers told Mr. Ball that these two men were 10 to 15 feet apart as the caravan came down towards them.

Ooops. I'm afraid that you have made a grave error. This is the same error you have many times before. You are now misstating the facts. Keep this excerpt in mind:

Mr. BALL - How long was this before the President's car passed there?

Mr. BOWERS - This last car? About 8 minutes.

Mr. BALL - Were you in a position where you could see the corner of Elm and Houston from the tower?

Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not see the corner of Elm and Houston. I could see the corner of Main and Houston as they came down and turned on, then I couldn't see it for about half a block, and after they passed the corner of Elm and Houston the car came in sight again.

Mr. BALL - You saw the President's car coming out the Houston Street from Main, did you?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I saw that.

Mr. BALL - Then you lost sight of it?

Mr. BOWERS - Right. For a moment.

Mr. BALL - Then you saw it again where?

Mr. BOWERS - It came in sight after it had turned the corner of Elm and Houston.

(see below)

Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.

Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?

Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.

Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.

The men were looking toward Main & Houston, not toward Elm & Houston.

In other words, when Bowers saw the men & formed the impression that they were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, Bowers was looking at the men at a time before the limo rounded Main & Houston. Why would they look toward Main & Houston when the limo was at Elm & Houston? Or when the limo was descending Elm?

What proves you to be incorrect

Nothing proves me incorrect. It is you who are mistaken.

as to who Bowers was talking about comes from Hudson's testimony where he says that he and the man next to him were sitting next to one another and talking when the caravan came into the Plaza and they merely stood up on the steps together. (see below)

Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right .....

When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both.

To summarize what you have done ... Bowers time stamped when he saw the two men in question when he said they were standing 10 to 15 feet apart and watching the caravan come down towards them. You have gone out of your way to try and make people believe that Bowers was talking about the men seen on the steps in the assassination images, but at a point they were moving in and out of his line of sight. Emmett Hudson says that he and one of the men had been sitting on the steps and talking and didn't rise to their feet until the caravan turned onto Elm Street.

No, Hudson does NOT say when he sat on the steps. Nor does he say for how long he sat on the steps. Nor whether or not he rose & sat down again.

Hudson says only:

...me and him both just sat there first on those steps...

You, BM, have attempted to force the facts into a false picture. Bowers could easily have observed Hudson & the "young man" or another person standing within 10 to 15 feet from one another at a time before the motorcade rounded Main & Houston. Hudson said that he stood up after motorcade was on Elm.

This discrepancy should tell a reasonable researcher that we ARE NOT talking about the same people. Hudson was not 10 to 15 feet apart from the man sitting next to him when the caravan entered the plaza, nor were they standing, nor were they 10 to 15 feet apart at the time.

Wrong. You are trying to force two different & separate time segments into one time simultaneity. Nonsense.

Groden, Mack,

Name dropping again, when your argument is failing?

and Kathy Beckett have all shown that Lee Bowers could not see anyone sitting or standing on the steps at any time. So to simplify ... when the caravan starts towards these men ...

No. Wrong again. When the caravan starts towards these men Hudson is not sitting on the steps.

they are standing 10 to 15 feet apart ... Hudson says the man with him, which you try to make out to be one of the men Bowers spoke about, was sitting right next to him ON THE STEPS, which could not have been seen from the tower when the caravan came onto Elm Street.

The above is evidence that a small child could follow and understand,

But you, BM, have failed to follow & understand the testimony & the sequence of events.

but we are to believe that you are not purposely misstating the evidence and ignoring this crucial point in the name of truth rather then to be purposely misleading the reader

It is seen now that it is you, BM, who are misstating the facts & misleading the reader.

Bill Miller

(PS:

It should be noted in addendum that Hudson's testimony has been shown to be riddled with contradictions & inconsistencies to an extent to render it not credible.)

Edit: syntax

Edited May 2, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Until Bill Miller acknowledges the unavoidable fact that Lee Bowers could not identify the dark dressed man seen at a different time from the two men he described at an earlier time period, then he is doing nothing other than spinning a yarn.

The plain fact of the matter is that because Bowers could not identify this man, then this man is an unknown person. Miller putting 2 and 2 together and assuming it was the same man seen earlier is a farce, and as I have said previously, it would be thrown out of court.

Assumption is not evidence.

Duncan

More foolish evasion on your part in my opinion. Should I go back and count how many times I either posted Bowers saying that he could not see the other guy, but still saw the one that he told Ball about. Should I count how many times I said that it is a given that Bowers lost track of one of the two men that Ball asked him about. Should I then count how many times that I have pointed out that Bowers described the two men just prior to the 6+ second shooting and how a man in a white shirt and the other in a plaid jacket do not look like someone in a cops uniform.

You will not admit that you are in error, thus we will just have to disagree and let those who study these threads reach their own conclusion.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

There is something in Bowers testimony that shows you to be incorrect

No, there is nothing. You misstate the facts.

Miles ... you merely saying it without a breakdown of the evidence like the ones found in my response ... this is just more propaganda on your part like when you posted that Duncan had been consulting Mack and Groden. Are you that ignorant about the intelligence of those who read these threads.

Good insight! Yes, that is exactly my position. Yes, Bowers saw the men when he looked at them. When he did not look at the men, Bowers did not see them. You are correctly stating the facts & my position.

I know I am correct in stating the things you have said, but what you are pretending not to get is that Bowers said he saw the two men as the caravan was coming towards them and Hudson said that even before the caravan came into the plaza that he and the other man were sitting on the steps which have been proved beyond any doubt to NOT BE IN BOWERS LINE OF SIGHT.

Ooops. I'm afraid that you have made a grave error. This is the same error you have many times before. You are now misstating the facts. Keep this excerpt in mind:

Mr. BALL - How long was this before the President's car passed there?

Mr. BOWERS - This last car? About 8 minutes.

Mr. BALL - Were you in a position where you could see the corner of Elm and Houston from the tower?

Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not see the corner of Elm and Houston. I could see the corner of Main and Houston as they came down and turned on, then I couldn't see it for about half a block, and after they passed the corner of Elm and Houston the car came in sight again.

Mr. BALL - You saw the President's car coming out the Houston Street from Main, did you?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I saw that.

Mr. BALL - Then you lost sight of it?

Mr. BOWERS - Right. For a moment.

Mr. BALL - Then you saw it again where?

Mr. BOWERS - It came in sight after it had turned the corner of Elm and Houston.

Yes Miles, but Hudson said he had been sitting ON THE STEPS talking to the other man who was sitting to his left (EAST) when the caravan started coming towards them. Thats the point that you try and change, but its a matter of record that you have no way around other than pretending to be dumb about its significance.

Nothing proves me incorrect. It is you who are mistaken.

Only the readers will decide that for themselves ... it is obviously not in you to come clean here. We heard the same garbage from you over the 'Duncan consulting with Groden and Mack' disinformation you posted, the Holland running off the underpass immediately after the shots were fired claim you posted ... and the Bowers had a LOS to the steps nonsense.

No, Hudson does NOT say when he sat on the steps. Nor does he say for how long he sat on the steps. Nor whether or not he rose & sat down again.

Yes, Hudson said the two spoke to each other while sitting on the steps together and when the caravan came towards them - they stood up together. If it is your position that after the two were sitting together and talking ... that the man to his east got up and started walking around, then it is not in the record and you are rewriting the evidence to fit your agenda. Hudson never says anything like ... 'The other guy was walking around and when the caravan turned onto Houston from Main ... the other guy hurried over and sat beside me so we could stand up together. ' If you wish to see that nonsense, then good luck in finding a buyer!

Name dropping again, when your argument is failing?

You call it name dropping and I call it reminded people of your past dishonesty. Have you not heard the story about the little boy who cried wolf ... could apply to you.

No. Wrong again. When the caravan starts towards these men Hudson is not sitting on the steps.

If by staring towards these men as meaning starting from the moment the caravan left Love Field ... you might have a point. Putting a time clock on the cravan coming onto Houston and traveling to the corner of Elm shouldn't be too hard for you to do. hen apply that to Hudson's testimony and see if you can manipulate and distort it still to fit your disinformation agenda.

It should be noted in addendum that Hudson's testimony has been shown to be riddled with contradictions & inconsistencies to an extent to render it not credible.

Which parts, Miles ... the parts that discredit your claim? You have been using Hudson's testimony throughout your response, so it seems hypocritical to be telling the reader that its full of contradictions ... if that is truly what you believe. Personally, I believe it is you that creates the contradictions because you chose certain things and attempt to twist them in a new light to push what I believe you know to be disinformation. There has been enough said ... the readers can make up their own minds.

Bill Miller

Edited May 2, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

[...]

There has been enough said ... the readers can make up their own minds.

Bill Miller

some have, you're in way over your head..... <chortle>

[Bill Miller]

some have, you're in way over your head..... <chortle>

Have you made up your mind, 'David the double talker'?

[Bill Miller]

The big error lies with you. You base your case on an assumption. Assumptions don't win cases. My case is based on historical and verifiable recorded fact, the fact being that Bowers could not identify the dark dressed man. I guess we have a stalemate for now.

Duncan

Maybe someone else can come forward and explain to me how Bowers not identifying someone has anything to do with the clothing they wore that he already described to Mr. Ball just seconds before the shooting started. Even if we totally ignore the fact that Ball asked Bowers about the two men he saw just prior to the shooting, and Bowers said that he couldn't see the other man, then you have no basis for making the statement that maybe Bowers did see your alleged shooter disguised not as a man in a white shirt or plaid jacket, but dressed like a cop. What a joke IMO! I have asked several respected researchers what they made of your remarks ... I regret that forum rules do not allow me to post what they said.

As far as 'assumptions' go ... you have assumed that someone was disguised as a cop ... that Bowers saw someone disguised as a cop even though his description to Mr. Ball doesn't match a policeman's uniform ... you also assumed that a washout took place on Moorman's photo even though there was no data to support your position. You also seemed to assume that somehow a selective washout could take place on a photo without offering one cited expert source for your opinion. Only someone delusional could consider that a stalemate.

[Bill Miller]

This drawing shows how high above the fence Hatman's hat has to be. But in Moorman Hatman looks like he is examining the north side of the fence for a possible termite infestation. Either that or Hatman tossed his hat onto the picket slat points & sat down for a smoke.

Conclusion: it's simply not a hat at all.

The plaid jacket reverses to dark blue with chevrons, in Sarti's uniform disguise.

Correct me if I wrong ... Didn't Josiah Thompson mention something in his book 'Six Seconds in Dallas' about Sam Holland being at the Hat Man location in Moorman's photo and found the two to match ... did I get that wrong?

You on the other hand, post a ridiculous out of scale cartoon drawing ... and with the limo in a totally different place from where it is located in Moorman's photo (which changes a shooters perspective field of view), and now you have Sarti also wearing plaid jackets that double for a police uniform ... is that your position ... and if so, then based on what factual data???

[Steve Mcdonagh]

I have been reading posts on this site for about 3-4 months now and although I have been a member for about two months, this is my first post.

Duncan, can you summarise your thread in layman’s terms so that I the reader may understand what your point is and if possible answer these three questions for me?

Are you saying there was a shooter there or not?

Are you saying that Bowers did or did not see a person in a police uniform?

If Bowers did not see a person in a uniform are you suggesting that this doesn’t mean that there wasn’t one there, it was just that Bowers may not have seem him/her?

I look forward to your reply and I would sincerely appreciate if everyone else could refrain from the childish back biting for a short period to allow Duncan to express his point clearly without distraction.

Thanks - Steve