Question For Josiah : Hatman 3 and a bit years later

[Bill Miller]

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

Some say ... ??? I see only you talking and you have a history of saying one thing and then the opposite in the same threads.

Then there is your cheerleader, Duncan who posted that the following image of the Black Dog Man and called it an 'enhancement' ... LOL!!!

I don't mind the 'some people' you refer to as thinking I am way over my head. In fact, I don't expect them to say anything else. Its the same crowd that makes up 'Hoax' only to find that nothing within that book convinced you that you saw no proof of alteration.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

My point is simple Steve. Bowers may have seen the 33ft shooter, but failed to recognise him as is verified when he stated in his recorded testimony that he " Could not identify the dark dressed man because of the trees "

Its said in some places that if something gets hung up in the toilet, just flush it again. Lee Bowers was addressing a question put forth by Mr. Ball concerning the two men Bowers had described ... one wearing a white shirt and the other in a plaid jacket. I am still waiting for something even remotely intelligent from you as to how you get a man in a plaid jacket into being a cop????????????????????????

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Thanks for the answers Duncan.

[Miles Scull]

Thanks for the answers Duncan.

Lee Bowers was addressing a question put forth by Mr. Ball concerning the two men Bowers had described ... one wearing a white shirt and the other in a plaid jacket. I am still waiting for something even remotely intelligent from you as to how you get a man in a plaid jacket into being a cop???????????????????????? - MILLER

In over head? I can help.

Here's how it's done:

Oldest trick in the book: the reversible police jacket.

[Bill Miller]

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.

Bill, I don't believe you are really as thick as you are making yourself look in this thread. The above statement is a typical example of your failure to understand and respond with a coherent reply to my initial statement " Maybe he did "

It doesn't matter if Bowers identified 1001 people, The fact is that he could not identify the dark dressed man, who therefore remains an unknown quantity.

It's that simple, and your avoid the issue in question dance is becoming boring.

Duncan

I think if you were to solicit a grade schooler with only beginner reading skills would take Bowers comment to mean that he could not make out the darker dressed man's shape against the background of the trees. Ball asked Bowers specifically about the two men he saw earlier. Bowers said to Ball's later questions that after the shots were fired, Lee could see the man in the white shirt, but had lost sight of the man in the plaid jacket. So whether Lee Bowers could distinguish that man from the trees or whatever ... The man Bowers could no longer see was still the other man who wore a plaid jacket.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

That's correct, i'm saying both, Bowers " Could not identify the dark dressed man because of the trees " In other words, it could have been or may not have been someone in a policemans outfit.

LOL!!!! So someone who Bowers could not see may have been someone disguised in a cops uniform ... does that sound sensible to you! Ball asked Bowers about two men ... Bowers described them prior to the shooting as one wearing a white shirt and the other in a plaid jacket. Lee says that after the last shot(s) that he could still see the man in the white shirt, but could no longer see the other guy (the same guy Lee saw moments earlier in a plaid jacket.) I am still waiting for a logical answer to how someone Lee cannot see, that he has previously described to be wearing a plaid jacket, has somehow transformed into a man disguised as a cop.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The man Bowers could no longer see was still the other man who wore a plaid jacket.

Bill

Classic statement Bill, and one which will remain in the Forum's top 10 bloopers for a long long time This proves your dance is over. You are now claiming that Bowers had Super Powers, and could identify a man who could not be seen, even although Bowers himself said he could not identify him. You have the audacity to criticise David's " I believe the Zapruder film has been altered but i've never seen any proof " and then YOU invent this classic which I would rank at Number 1 in the blooper charts, way above David's perfectly logical in my opinion statement.

Your blooper is that good, I'm showing it again

Duncan

The man Bowers could no longer see was still the other man who wore a plaid jacket.

Bill

Duncan,

I paraphrased your position and quite frankly ... those members and researchers that I have spoken to about your responses have said to me that you are a waste of time and remain an off-the-wall lunatic when it comes to your modus-operandi in understanding the evidence. I have gone out of my way to make it simple for you to follow, but it is apparent that you were never interested in understanding the issue at all.

Bowers told Ball about the 'two men' he saw moments before the shooting started. Bowers described them as 'one wearing a white shirt and the other a plaid jacket'. Ball then asked Bowers if he saw those same men immediately following the shooting and Bowers replied that he recalled seeing the white shirted man and that the darker dressed man (plaid jacket man) was not visible. You made an assertion that the man Bowers couldn't see was your alleged man disguised in a cops uniform and all I have wanted to know was how it is that you could think that the plaid jacketed man that Bowers told Mr. Ball about not seeing because he was too dark against the background could in your mind be a man dressed like a cop. Several times I have pointed out that Bowers and Ball were still discussing the white shirted man and the plaid jacketed man and you have (in my opinion) have purposely side stepped that reality with the type of idiotic responses like your previous one above. Even Miles had enough brains to think that maybe the jacket was reversible and could be turned somehow into a cops uniform ... you on the other hand have done nothing but run up one silly response after another. You either are not bright enough to understand the issue here or you don't want to understand it so not to have to admit that you once again have gone down another dead end. I am leaning towards it being the latter.

Bill

Edited May 4, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Even Miles had enough brains to think that maybe the jacket was reversible and could be turned somehow into a cops uniform ...

Bill[/b]

BM is forgetting that Bowers did see uniformed individuals & said so.

Old as the hills: the reversible plaid police jacket.

[Bill Miller]

Bill

I'm not interested in what your nameless invisible researcher buddies, who don't have the guts to post their thoughts openly on this forum think about me. As far as i'm concerned, until they come out of the woodwork, they don't exist.

My point was a simple one that I thought even you could understand, but obvously not, either that or you are just playing your same old dance routine.

Bowers by his own admission, could not identify the dark dressed man, that's a fact, live with it.

Duncan

Actually, they have names, but I agree ... you are not interested in what anyone thinks any more than you are interested in applying common sense to your claims. There is no doubt that Bowers couldn't identify the darker dressed man, but what he was saying was that he couldn't identify the other man that Ball had asked about because he was too hard to distinguish from the backdrop of tree foliage.

It's so obvious that Ball had asked Bowers about the two men he had described to the Commission just a few answers earlier. This is just why your comment "The man Bowers could no longer see was still the other man who wore a plaid jacket" as if to imply that I am in the dark as to who Bowers was talking about is just utter ineptness on your part to be able to follow a simple back and forth line of questioning. If you choose to pretend not to understand the line of questioning, then so be it. After all it is said that a stupid man won't know when he is wrong. The readers can decide which one of us fits the bill over this matter. (smile~)

Bill

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.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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.

In other words, Bowers did not have x-ray vision, and could not identify a second person. Do you have a degree in Thickology?

Saying that other researchers are all on your side is garbage unless you can prove it.

As usual, you bring out your non existant ace card, by saying that respected researchers are all on your side in this thread. If they can't contribute, their input means zilch minus. I believe those who have been following, and more importantly, contributing to this thread are on my side. Find another card game Bill. Your ace is marked.

Duncan

I showed your response today to a Canadian that doesn't research the JFK assassination and he understood the point I made from the first run through. He wanted to know if there are many odd-balls who participate in that stuff ... I said, "Well you just heard about one!" I then showed him your so-called Black Dog Man enhancement and he just shook his head.

As far as your 'If they don't post that I have made a mistake, then they must agree with me' ... that' has been proved to be a flawed approach.

I have also said a few times now that I agree that Bowers could not see the second man that he saw moments earlier because where ever the guy went to ... Lee couldn't make him out against the trees. But whether the guy fell behind a car or flew away on the wings of an angel ... Lee had described him to Mr. Ball as having on a plaid jacket. I have seen no pictures of any policeman or men disguised as policemen who were wearing plaid jackets.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

BM is forgetting that Bowers did see uniformed individuals & said so.

Old as the hills: the reversible plaid police jacket.

[/color]

Bowers did describe seeing uniformed officers, but again he did so unrelated to the two men that he talked with Ball about. (see below) And besides, Miles ... I thought you said Bowers saw 'red plaid' and in the vicinity of the steps ... Is it your new contention that Bowers saw plaid designs on everything. LOL!

Mr. BOWERS - On the triple underpass, there were two policemen. One facing each direction, both east and west. There was one railroad employee, a signal man there with the Union Terminal Co., and two welders that worked for the Fort Worth Welding firm, and there was also a laborer's assistant furnished by the railroad to these welders.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Here we go again.....More mysterious unknown nameless researchers who supposedly support your claim that Bowers was able to identify a man who he could not see. They are not here to debate, they don't count.

Bowers by his own admission in his recorded testimony didn't see the man. so as i've said more times than I care to remember now, your claim is a farce.

Can you imagine standing in a courtroom and saying to the judge. " I didn't see a man, but I can identify him sir "

They would think you were three thirds crazy.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan ... It is little wonder that you cannot understand what Bowers was talking about in relation to Mr. Ball's question. In your opening remark in the previous response ... you said 'More unknown nameless researchers ....' and yet I said the person WAS NOT a JFK researcher. Maybe you really aren't trying to side step the obvious and that your doing so is because of the other option that I posted earlier.

BM: "I showed your response today to a Canadian that doesn't research the JFK assassination"

[Miles Scull]

Great stuff coming from Bill " Bowers can identify an invisible man " Miller

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

You are correct.

BM apparently has not studied Bowers' testimony as he has overlooked critical Bowers' evidence, which BM has not mentioned in 20 years of research. Hence the cryptrozoological interpolations.

If something is not there, such as Big Foot, then how can Bowers ID such?

Mr. BALL - Did you see any other people up on this high ground?

Mr. BOWERS - There were one or two people in the area. Not in this same vicinity. One of them was a parking lot attendant that operates a parking lot there. One or two. Each had uniforms similar to those custodians at the courthouse. But they were some distance back, just a slight distance back.

Bowers was not looking at these UNIFORMED individuals when the shooting occurred. He assumed that they were lot attendants.

But Sarti was wearing a uniform, a uniform that resembled a police uniform or a custodian's uniform at the distance.

Note that Bowers says one OR two. Bowers is saying that he may have seen the same "attendant" twice, or that there may have been one who vanished from view at times. (!)

A shooter at 33 feet.

[Bill Miller]

Get your facts correct. Quote where I said this unknown Canadian was a JFK Reasearcher.

Great stuff coming from Bill " Bowers can identify an invisible man " Miller

Duncan MacRae

I have a question for you. Do you think that it helps your credibility on these claims if you make insinuations and then try and play word games over whether you said something or not ... I believe that most people can see through it.

For instance, we are talking about the JFK assassination and what Lee Bowers was talking about to Mr. Ball. In a previous post I mentioned how other JFK researchers that I have spoken to about your responses cannot understand your logic either. So this time I asked a non-JFK assassination researcher who is an author and has a pretty good grasp of the English language and sentence structure to see if he can follow your logic. The first thing you reply with is "Here we go again.....More mysterious unknown nameless researchers who supposedly support your claim that Bowers was able to identify a man who he could not see." Now you wish to play dumb and ask 'Duh ... Where did I say the guy was a JFK assassination researcher ... Duh ???' It is my opinion that your modus-operandi is quite noticeable and doesn't work. Your argument is so ridiculous that you once again have posted that I said that 'Bowers could identify an invisible man', which is not what I have said at all. Lets see if I can do this another way so you can maybe understand it ... or pretend not to and look even sillier.

Mr. X says that he saw Duncan and Miller at a baseball game and they were sitting against the green outfield wall. Mr. X adds that Miller was wearing a white shirt and Duncan was wearing a dark plaid coat. Mr. X also says that he first saw Miller and Duncan during the singing of the national anthem, but in response to follow-up question if he was still able to see you and I after the singing of the anthem ... Mr. X says that he could still see Miller's white shirt, but he couldn't see Duncan because you had now blended into the background color of the wall. Now I cannot speak for you, but if a third party were to then start asserting that Mr. X was maybe talking about not seeing Miller and and not seeing the umpire or the hot dog vender ... I am sure you'd have no problem reminding the third party that Mr. X was specifically talking about Miller and Duncan ... not Miller and someone else.

Bowers simply said that he couldn't distinguish the plaid jacketed man because of him blending into the trees. The focus of Bowers answer is still on the plaid jacketed man ... not people disguised as cops. You and I will have to just disagree on this one.

Bill

Edited May 5, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

That's not what he said actually..He didn't mention the plaid jacketed man.

This is what bowers said.

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.

Duncan MacRae

QUOTE(Duncan MacRae @ May 5 2008, 04:16 PM)

Great stuff coming from Bill " Bowers can identify an invisible man " Miller

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

You are correct.

BM apparently has not studied Bowers' testimony as he has overlooked critical Bowers' evidence, which BM has not mentioned in 20 years of research. Hence the cryptrozoological interpolations.

If something is not there, such as Big Foot, then how can Bowers ID such?

QUOTE

Mr. BALL - Did you see any other people up on this high ground?

Mr. BOWERS - There were one or two people in the area. Not in this same vicinity. One of them was a parking lot attendant that operates a parking lot there. One or two. Each had uniforms similar to those custodians at the courthouse. But they were some distance back, just a slight distance back.

Bowers was not looking at these UNIFORMED individuals when the shooting occurred. He assumed that they were lot attendants.

But Sarti was wearing a uniform, a uniform that resembled a police uniform or a custodian's uniform at the distance.

Note that Bowers says one OR two. Bowers is saying that he may have seen the same "attendant" twice, or that there may have been one who vanished from view at times. (!)

A shooter at 33 feet.

Addendum:

The hatman illusion if real precludes the possibility of its being a human shooter, because of its position & size.

Thus, the shooter must be elsewhere.