Question For Josiah : Hatman 3 and a bit years later

[Bill Miller]

If you misquote me, expect a proper response. I repeat, Quote where I said this unknown Canadian was a JFK Reasearcher

It cannot be a misquote because I copied and pasted your words to my response. If the words do not match on your screen, then contact Simkin and let him know that someone is altering your text.

Now about what you didn't say ... "Here we go again.....More mysterious unknown nameless researchers who supposedly support your claim that Bowers". So Duncan, if you are not referring that I posted about another nameless JFK researcher, then what kind of a researcher did you think I was talking about ... a pine beetle researcher? Do pine beetle researchers discuss Lee Bowers or do JFK researchers ????

Name them and post their input, or quit rabbiting on with nonsensical unproveable ramblings about unknown researchers like an old fishwife

Duncan, one could make an argument that you don't even contribute here. I didn't even say the guy was a researcher of any kind ... that was just another assumption that you made.

I don't care who you ask. If they don't contribute here, their opinions are worthless here.

That's a good thing ... right? I mean at least you will have something in common with him.

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.

What kind of idiocy are you bringing to this thread! Bowers described two men who were standing in a certain area. Lee described their clothing to Mr.Bball. Then Ball asked Lee if he saw those same two men in that area after the shooting and Lee said that he saw the white shirted man, but not the other. How stupid can we pretend to be so not to admit that if one of the two men who wore the white shirt was seen, then the other man that isn't seen was the plaid jacketed man.

If you have reading comprehension difficulty, then seek the advice of someone who can help you. So I will let you have the last word if you think it will help you in some way.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

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? [/color]

Looks like you are trolling again, Miles. you are now talking about custodians when Duncan has said several times that his alleged guy is a man disguised as a cop. If you want to help Duncan, then I suggest that you don't align yourself with him ... you know - guilt by association.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

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? [/color]

Looks like you are trolling again, Miles. you are now talking about custodians when Duncan has said several times that his alleged guy is a man disguised as a cop. If you want to help Duncan, then I suggest that you don't align yourself with him ... you know - guilt by association.

Bill Miller

speaking of guilt....

[Bill Miller]

Yip, guilty of dancing on one leg, hands in the air, and with a straw between his teeth, and quoting stuff from me that I didn't say like for example

" Duncan has said several times that his alleged guy is a man disguised as a cop"

More good comedy from Bill " Bowers can Identify an invisible man " Miller

Duncan MacRae

Duncan ... your response above is by far the best you have given so far and it doesn't make any sense. And I thought only Hitler believed that if you told a lie enough times - that it would become the truth. You have made countless silly responses when the original issue was quite clear. It was never a matter of Bowers seeing the man because Lee said that he couldn't make the guy out against the tree foliage. The question was whether Lee was talking about seeing a man disguised as a cop or not. Mr. Ball asked Lee if the 'two men' he had described to the Commission were still seen where Bowers saw them last. Bowers knew exactly what Ball was asking and is why Lee said that the white shirt man was still visible, but the other man (the one described as wearing a plaid jacket) was not seen. Congrats on making a simple observation and statement by Bowers into some moronic rewriting of Lee's testimony. Everything is as clear as your so-called BDM enhancement. I must ask this again ... If you believe that you are correct and that Bowers saw this floating cop torso, then what are your plans to get such an important find out to the world other than polluting this forum with such nonsense???

Bill

[Bill Miller]

speaking of guilt....

--------------------

David Healy

"Bill Miller < uses copyright material without asking permission"

Anyone who has ever posted images of the Zapruder film to this forum as done so without getting permission from the party who owns the copyright ... including you, 'David the Doubletalker' . But if you like ... please feel free to give an example of my using copyrighted material without permission and we will see if what you have childishly said specifically applies to only me or everyone, including yourself.

Thanks in advance!

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Duncan ... your response above is by far the best you have given so far and it doesn't make any sense.

Bill

lol!!! I disagree. I think your " Bowers could identify a person who he can not see " is an outright winner by any standards

I think Superbowers would be a more appropriate name

Duncan,

If I am wrong, please correct.

Your point is that by stating that he could not see the darker dressed man, Bowers allows that the man not seen may not have been a man wearing a plaid shirt or plaid jacket.

Bowers allows this inference because it would have been easy for him to have said that he could not see the dark plaid shirted man.

As he did not specify plaid, Bowers allows that plaid may not have been absolute but only tentative in Bowers mind, dark being a descriptor of man & trees.

If that is so, then I agree. Bowers allows that. The man could have been a blue (night watch) plaid man or a man in a dark police tunic. BM cannot gainsay this by insisting that the dark man must be plaid man.

A like fallacious reasoning is seen in arguing that since different size foot prints were found in the trampled mud at Holland's position behind the fence, that, therefore, Edward Landsdale visited Files at that location, as has been suggested.

This is the equivalent of saying that because this was found, that, therefore, something had a big foot.

Cannot be done. Silly to try to force the facts to prove a crypto.

Your thoughts?

Edit: restoration

Edited May 6, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Okay, guys, I have photoshopped the Super Bowers image, and will ask all the other moderators if it is in as poor taste as I think it is. If they disagree, it can be returned.

While we are at it, if this thread has come to the point where you folks are just coming up with ways to knock each other, why don't you just let it die??

Kathy,

I am sorry if you were offended by Duncan's flourish. Why not ask BM if HE is offended. I do not see it the same way you do. Fortunately, I saved Duncan's delightfully humorous pic before you removed it.

As for the thread's validity?

Well, I pointed out something rather significant. Namely, that the custodians could not have been real custodians. That's new.

Please pass this post as counter opinion.

Thank you.

Edit: spelling

Edited May 6, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

That's correct Miles. As for Lansdale. Think this may be him?

Duncan

Duncan, thank you so much for posting that ridiculous photo interpretation of yours once again. So you think that's Lansdale waiting at the pedestal so to help Sitzman and Zapruder get off of it ... very interesting. So what chemicals are we doing today so to come up with that kind of stuff???

You have been told in the past that the Paschall film catches Zapruder hitting the ground as he hopped off the pedestal and it has been pointed out that Zapruder then immediately took off walking away from the pedestal the moment his feet hit the ground. That pedestal can be seen in the Paschall film and the Bell film and there is no one near there but Sitzman and Zapruder. Your unwillingness to admit you were wrong in the face of hard evidence to the contrary doesn't reflect well on you.

[Bill Miller]

Kathy, the image was not intended to be in bad taste. It was merely a different way of telling Bill that Bowers would require super powers to be able to identify a man who he could not see.

Yet you (Duncan) made the original assertion that the man Bowers could not see was your floating man disguised as a cop.

My only point then and still is that Ball asked Bowers about the two men Lee had just described to him as one wearing a white shirt and the other a plaid jacket. Bowers replied that he could only see the one man because of his white shirt and the other man he couldn't make out against the background of the trees. You have made a complete fool of yourself in my opinion by pretending not to understand that one crucial point, but I am willing to accept that its not your fault.

Bill

Edited May 6, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Who says that the Altgens photo equates in timing with the Paschall sequence? The fact is. imo, that another man is seen in this particular Altgens photo, you just don't have the Bower Power to see it

Duncan

I won't direct this response to you, Duncan because I don't think you are capable of following it ... I mean after all ... you have missed it all those other times. But the answer is quite simple to anyone with an once of common sense and the ability to think logically. You see, if someone watches the Paschall film they will be forced to see that the very moment that Zapruder's feet hit the ground - he started walking east. Zapruder never came back to the pedestal and said, 'Hey ... lets do it again so Lansdale can be in the picture'. Altgens took his photo immediately upon Zapruder landing on the ground and starting his walk ... the walk I referenced in the Paschall and Bell films. It is those films that show that only Zapruder and Sitzman were at the pedestal and that this silly 'third person' claim is just another example of someone not bothering to cross reference the films and photos so to not waste time on impossibilities.

Bill

Edited May 7, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

No, I didn't say that. If you go back to the opening post, you'll see that I said " Maybe he did"

There's a big difference between what you are saying that I said, and what I actually said.

Your remark came at a time that I was discussing the two men Bowers told Ball about. If it is your position that when Ball asked about the two men Bowers had just told him about that this meant 'maybe you saw someone dressed like a cop at the same location, then I am not buying it!

Correct, he could not identify a man who he could not see. Eureeka..He's got it at last.......maybe!

Got it at last??? Would it help you if I went back and counted for you the number of times I agreed that Bowers said that couldn't see the plaid jacketed man. Do you have some mental flaw that doesn't register the first half dozen times you have been told something before thinking you are hearing it for the first time ... I'm not buying that defense either.

[Bill Miller]

I agreed that Bowers said that couldn't see the plaid jacketed man.

Bill

And here's me thinking you got it, when really you who should be starring in

" One flew over the Cuckoo's nest part 2, The Miller Story "

If Bowers could not see the plaid jacketed man, then it's only common sense that he could not identify him.

For some cooky reason you seem to think that in his testimony, Bowers identified the man he couldn't see lol!!!

You have reached a level of thickness I did not think was possible.

Duncan

Its a simple matter of Bowers telling someone that he saw two men at a said location just moments earlier and when Ball asked him if the same two men were still in the same location after the shooting stopped - Lee said one of them was there and the other was too hard to distinguish from the trees. For some moronic reason you have concluded that because Bowers couldn't see the plaid jacketed man ... that makes it possible that Bowers saw someone in a cops uniform. In fact, Bowers never mentioned a policeman in that area until he witnessed a cop come up there in the vicinity of where the two men had been standing when the caravan entered the Plaza.

Like I have said several times now ... we will have to agree to disagree.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Zapruder never came back to the pedestal

Bill

What makes you think that ?

Duncan

By correlating the various assassination images.

[Bill Miller]

So, in your correlation, you are avoiding the figure seen with the hat in this image?

Duncan

Can I assume that the figure in the hat that you are referring to isn't Mr. Chism, but rather Zapruder in the shelter? If so, then does not the Bell footage show Zapruder stopping his easterly walk and doesn't Charles Hester start to rise up off the ground to run to the colonnade BEFORE Zapruder turns to go back towards the shelter ... Of course this happens! So unless it is your position that Hester ran back over to his wife and laid down so to be seen in Altgens photo ... that means that Altgens took his photo at the precise moment that Zapruder hit the ground and started walking east.

Another big mystery solved through simple observation and a little cross referencing of the assassination images.

Bill Miller

PS: Keep the cross referencing technique to yourself for if that research secret was to ever get out, then everyone would be doing it.

Edited May 7, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

First you say Zapruder did not go back towards the shelter, and now you are saying that he did.

Make your position clear.

Also, Why are you sticking to Altgens when it is patently obvious that I am disputing your correlation with reference to the hat figure in Rickerby seen above.

Duncan

Listen Duncan ... I am not going to play this stupid game with you. This time you can 'play with yourself' so-to-speak ... at least the game will be fair. Yes, Zapruder is in the shelter - so is Hester. And if you can show me where I said that Zapruder didn't go back towards the shelter, then I would appreciate you pointing it out to me. I am one of the first people who posted that image quite some time ago showing that Zapruder was in the shelter.

Now a quick summary of this dance ...

I said that Altgens took that photo of Sitzman and Zapruder the moment that Abe hopped off the pedestal. You asked how I knew this by correlating the assassination images. I have told you that the Paschall film shows Zapruder hopping off the pedestal and immediately walking east away from Sitzman. The Bell film shows Zapruder after the hop off the pedestal and while walking east. Bell also shows Hester rising up from the ground before Zapruder heads back towards the shelter.

Now here is the clincher ... Altgens photo shows Charles Hester still on the ground in the photo showing Abe and Sitzman together at the pedestal. This should tell a rational and sensible person that Altgens took his photo during the only opportunity that Zapruder and Sitzman were next to one another at the pedestal and before Charles Hester got up and went to the colonnade.

Bill Miller