Thomas Graves Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Duncan,Pretty UNUSUAL is it not? BM receives the Magoo Award in spades! Not unusual - just stupid! And what shooter ... you asked this question and showed this photo in relation to questions about Oswald's escape route .... what relevance is a photo of the RR yard 25 years after the assassination?? I mean, what kind of a screwball purposely tries to go off-topic and will post a dark hazy image with a small crop of someones head inserted into it and then hints that a dark area may be a shooter. I actually asked another researcher just what in the heck did he think you were trying to do and he replied, "Certainly not trying to advance the case in JFK's assassination." Such a waste of time IMO. And what about some joker posting an Allen photo and wrongly calling it a Murry photo. Then you assert that I cannot find Ozzie ... who is 'Ozzie'??? And where have you been all these years ... the claim that Oswald is seen in that photo was debunked a long time ago, so there is no Oswald to find in that photo. So rather than to post about the need to use clearer prints for interpretations over poor grainy images ... you brought this nonsense to the table. You make a sham out of this forum and yet their seem to be no rules against you doing it .... so xxxxx on Miles. Bill Miller _______________________________ Bill, Good post. Thanks, --Thomas _______________________________ With respect Thomas, not a good post at all, just more blowhard stuff from Bill because he failed to understand the point of Miles post, and his blood must be boiling over because I understood it. Bill self proclaims that he is an expert interpreter of the content of individual photographs at the scene of the JFK assassination, sunlight and foliage effects appearing to the favourite self proclaimed topic on which he believes he is an expert. Craig Lamson slaughtered him on the subject recently. Miles did a simple test to evaluate Bill's ovservational skills, and he failed miserably, I passed. He also argued with me that it was not Gary Mack in a photograph. Gary corrected him on the matter, proving I was correct. Bill claims Hatman is in Wilis, but fails to produce the evidence. He relies mainly on backup from researcher Robert Groden who is renowned for his blunders, OJ'S shoes, the Pyracantha assassin etc etc. He accuses me of using fuzzy and blurred images, yet decides to copy what he says is my Moorman ( it's not ) to his computer and tells me and everyone on this forum that he used it as part of his research. He fails to notice that the Gordon Arnold has been altered in the Moorman which he used. He continually says in almost every thread that " A well known researcher told me " but he never names them LOL!! Yes Thomas, a magnificent post fit for the trashcan. Duncan ______________________________________ Duncan, Very good post. Thanks for the summary and the "clarification." --Thomas ______________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Not unusual - just stupid! And what shooter ... you asked this question and showed this photo in relation to questions about Oswald's escape route .... what relevance is a photo of the RR yard 25 years after the assassination?? I mean, what kind of a screwball purposely tries to go off-topic and will post a dark hazy image with a small crop of someones head inserted into it and then hints that a dark area may be a shooter. I actually asked another researcher just what in the heck did he think you were trying to do and he replied, "Certainly not trying to advance the case in JFK's assassination." Such a waste of time IMO.And what about some joker posting an Allen photo and wrongly calling it a Murry photo. Then you assert that I cannot find Ozzie ... who is 'Ozzie'??? And where have you been all these years ... the claim that Oswald is seen in that photo was debunked a long time ago, so there is no Oswald to find in that photo. So rather than to post about the need to use clearer prints for interpretations over poor grainy images ... you brought this nonsense to the table. You make a sham out of this forum and yet their seem to be no rules against you doing it .... so xxxxx on Miles. Bill Miller With respect Thomas, not a good post at all, just more blowhard stuff from Bill because he failed to understand the point of Miles post, and his blood must be boiling over because I understood it. Bill self proclaims that he is an expert interpreter of the content of individual photographs at the scene of the JFK assassination, sunlight and foliage effects appearing to be the favourite self proclaimed topic on which he believes he is an expert. Craig Lamson slaughtered him on the subject recently. Miles did a simple test to evaluate Bill's ovamembertional skills,ecaus of the changand he failed printbmiserably, I passed. He also argued with me that it was not Gary Mack in a photograph. Gary corrected him on the matter, proving I was correct. Bill claims Hatman is in Wilis, but fails to produce the evidence. He relies mainly on backup from researcher Robert Groden who is renowned for his blunders, OJ'S shoes, the Pyracantha assassin etc etc. He accuses me of using fuzzy and blurred images, yet decides to copy what he says is my Moorman ( it's not ) to his computer and tells me and everyone on this forum that he used it as part of his research. He fails to notice that the Gordon Arnold has been altered in the Moorman which he used. He continually says in almost every thread that " A well known researcher told me " but he never names them LOL!! Yes Thomas, a magnificent post fit for the trashcan. Duncan I hardly know where to start and am wondering if it is even worth it. Yesterday I shared some of our recent exchanges with a Canadian who has no interest in the JFK assassination so to see what he thought of all this. He said right off, "Why would this guy wish to argue poor images over clear ones?" and I replied .... "Because he doesn't know any better." Then the Canadian said that from what he read was that 'the Duncan guy seems to just be wanting to compete with you even if he has nothing meaningful to say'. I agreed with him! As usual you can't cite anything correctly. For instance I have had to correct another person in the past on this forum that I never claimed to be an expert ... the word 'expert' comes from people like yourself who are trying to promote disinformation. I can point out several recent examples of this from your past post. I'll say Jack made a mistake and then you come right back asking when did Jack confess to me that he made a mistake. You hear what you want to hear or you hear it right and then change it so to promote something else. You recently did the same thing by taking my transparency animation and flat out lying that it was being passed off as a Moormoan photo. Despite my correcting you repeatedly ... you still push the same falsehood and have done so once again in your last response to Thomas. When I get time, I am going to go find the thread where that image was used and show the text that came with it so the members can see just how dishonest you have become. As far as you spotting a head ... I was taking Miles seriously that this photo had something to do with the assassination for it showed the RR . After all, this was a photo of the RR yard. Not Thomas, Kathy Beckett, Antti, Lamson, or any other member bothered to play some stupid game ... except you and in your warped mind you somehow think you accomplished something. I pointed out that Miles is jerking around by implying that the dark area was a shooter before I did, so I win the award for that point over you .... now doesn't that sound stupid to you or is that not a fair question considering your last response??? Your implication that Craig slaughtered me on something is a slanted view that you have because of your position on Gordon Arnold. If find your remarks very self-serving because you sure didn't seek Craig's expertise on your using a poor Moorman print to claim seeing someone 'disguised' as a cop shooting at the President. You also didn't seek Craig's expertise about the scaling of that alleged figure, nor did you seek Craig's advise about your scaling of Arnold concerning how someone would look in size if they were within three feet of the fence when looking uphill through Moorman's lens. In fact, you didn't post anything showing that you even tried to seek an expert on cameras to validate your claim. In fact, you bone-heads even tried showing Arnold to be too short without knowing that TMWKK wall was about a foot taller because of the changes in the landscaping at the wall since the time of the assassination. Instead you embrace something that Craig said about the clarity that Moorman's camera was capable of achieving when Craig had never viewed Moorman's original print in its early days. Other photography experts have looked at this issue and reached the opposite conclusion as Craig, so who is right and who is wrong certainly isn't something that you are qualified to determine IMO. The reader can decide if your remarks are valid and justified. Your remark that I didn't produce the image from the Willis photo is also false. I posted that link after I found time to go find it. As far as Mack not being recognized in the somewhat poor quality image you posted ... you are correct. The image wasn't recent and I had spent time with Gary in recent years and that was not how he looked from what I could see of that particular image you used. Kathy Beckett had just left Gary in Dallas after a visit with him and she thought the same as I did. I find that not to be a significant thing IMO. Groden's interpretations are not always correct and I have worked with him to challenge his old opinions and some of them have changed because of it. As I said earlier, your false allegation about my claiming that the combining of my Moorman recreation with the Moorman photo at various opacity settings is incorrect. What I have repeatedly said to someone who obviously doesn't want to hear it is that the Moorman image I used to make that combination overlay was a Moorman photo that you had posted. I can only correct the things you say ... I cannot make you smart enough to understand the difference or stop you from dishonestly misrepresenting them. As I said before, I will get around to finding the thread where my animated overlay was posted and i will share the text that you didn't seem to want to tell the readers about and it will be seen to all and they can decide whether or not you have tried to mislead them. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) Another unknown mystery opinion maker whose comments mean absolutely nothing..See what I mean Thomas? The same old garbage blurb with no substance The man's name is Rory Bently who lives in Harrison Hot Springs, BC ... does that added information now make his observation more accurate in your opinion and if not, then why mention it in the first place??? Disinformation like you claiming I use a blurry fuzzy Moorman which you say is not good enough for research purposes, and then you say you download it and use it for your research overlay..Gimme a break...you are having a laugh. I have never said that the Moorman prints that you use are not good enough for research purposes. What I said was that they are not as reliable for interpretation purposes as the good clearer prints that exist. I went as far as to suggest that you contact those who have access to those better prints and ask them to look at them so to validate your claim. I even posted a metaphor telling how not doing so is like telling me that you believe that you can see more detail by looking through a dirty window Vs. a clean one. Now having said this, why did you misrepresent my position in your previous remark? Misreading a sentence is one thing, but misreading every other sentence after that is just dishonest IMO. I can point out several recent examples of this from your past post. I'll say Jack made a mistake and then you come right back asking when did Jack confess to me that he made a mistake.Yes, because in your mind Jack made a mistake, that's just your opinion, not Jack's, unless that he can verify that he made a mistake on this forum. You hear what you want to hear or you hear it right and then change it so to promote something else. I don't hear anything, there's no audio on here, is there? I see and comprehend what I read without twisting things around the way you do, and continue to do here. So you see my merely saying that Jack made a mistake as meaning the same thing as Jack confessing that he made a mistake ... I will leave it at that and we will have to agree to disagree on that one. You recently did the same thing by taking my transparency animation and flat out lying that it was being passed off as a Moormoan photo.It's a combination of your recreation, and a faked Moorman. Do you deny that it has been altered? Despite my correcting you repeatedly ... you still push the same falsehood and have done so once again in your last response to Thomas. Thomas is intelligent enough to make up his own mind in this discussion. I agree that Thomas is capable of making up his own mind. My responses are not geared for trying to win Tom over, but to show the reader how your mind works and how that leads to so many false claims. When I get time, I am going to go find the thread where that image was used and show the text that came with it so the members can see just how dishonest you have become.There has been no dishonesty put forward by me, it's all in your head. I have even stated that I believe your study is correct, but that the Moorman image which you used is altered. What's wrong with that? Here's the link to the thread in question. Readers can decide if the Moorman you used is genuine or altered at the Arnold area, and who knows where else. Your study and honesty in the thread is I believe genuine. The thread in question The Gif with the FAKE Gordon Arnold Moorman as seen in the above link. Duncan I look forward to you pointing out where I ever posted that I represented Moorman's photo taken on 11/22/63 of actually having my photo images taken 40 years later in Mary's original Polaroid. Such a statement would be a blatant misrepresentation and I would want it corrected immediately. I think we should get right on this for it is a serous matter ... as serious as someone knowing better and trying to claim that I attempted to pass it off as Moorman's original Polariod image. We don't want any really dim-witted researchers to think that Moorman's B&W photo had colored images from another picture on her original photo - now do we. I look forward to your cooperation for a change! Debate is good, but not if you cannot keep straight as to what I have said. Bill Miller Edited June 12, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) You should read all of my post before you make absurd remarks. If you look just above the gif which I posted, you will see this."Your study and honesty in the thread is I believe genuine" Duncan Of course the study was honest and genuine, so what's up with all the 'faked Moorman' allegations? And if you like I will be happy to find where I said that dark image of Mike Brown was carried over onto the Moorman photo ... as if no one could see that on their own either. Now I have a question for you ... I saw a post that you made today where you said, "Bill claims Hatman is in Wilis, but fails to produce the evidence." This is interesting because I did post a link to that image from a thread that it was used in. Its also interesting that you also posted again two more times following that linked post of mine - and they too, were done yesterday. So tell me why you would post to Tom (today) that I failed to produce evidence of Hat Man seen in the Willis photo??? You do actually read my replies and try and reason them out before posting back to me - right! Let me share a link from this forum where the Willis image of Hat Man was shown from Groden's Willis print seen in TKOAP ... You participated in that thread I might add. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0518&st=225 If it your intention to try and appear right by misrepresenting the things I have said and done, then I ask that it stop for it does nothing to promote the truth as to what happened to President Kennedy. Bill Miller Edited June 12, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I'm not a moderator, nor do I play one on TV...neither do I desire the position. BUT...after three pages of this alleged discussion, I'd like to know how it relates to a clearer understanding of the JFK assassination, or what new information it brings to light. All I see is a urination contest--to use more polite terms that I was originally thinking--that is unnecessarily wasting the bandwidth of this site [think about that the next time you get a "site unavailable--bandwidth exceeded" error message when trying to connect to this discussion board]. If you folks are simply out to flame one another, I suggest you confine it to PM's, and save the forums here for those of us who are serious about either learning something or asking questions. As a politically incorrect pundit once expressed it, "Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded." Can we agree to rise to a higher level...for the sake of the cause here, which last I knew was the discussion of the JFK assassination...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 (edited) Now I have a question for you ... I saw a post that you made today where you said, "Bill claims Hatman is in Wilis, but fails to produce the evidence." This is interesting because I did post a link to that image from a thread that it was used in. Its also interesting that you also posted again two more times following that linked post of mine - and they too, were done yesterday. So tell me why you would post to Tom (today) that I failed to produce evidence of Hat Man seen in the Willis photo??? You do actually read my replies and try and reason them out before posting back to me - right!Bill Miller I knew about that post, but in my opinion it's one of the worst ever images posted on this forum, and in no way can it be considered as evidence of an alleged hatman. You claim I use blurry fuzzy images, well then, tell me exactly what this monstrosity of yours is, because it sure is not a man with a hat. I'm sure i've seen in before, can't remember where exactly, oh yeah, it was on page 47 of " Picasso's Finest Works " Need I say more? Duncan I will try to better explain the history of that image. The image is not pixeled, but was copied under high resolution from Groden's large Willis print in the book "The Killing of a President". The artifacts/pits are in the paper the image was printed on. Nothing about this was ever presented as proof of the Hat Man. What was said about it is Lee Bowers described two men behind the fence just prior to JFK's arrival. Bowers went as far as to say they were looking up towards the approaching motorcade. Sam Holland and others place a shot being fired at what has become known as the Hat Man location. The acoustics evidence supports someone having fired a shot from the same location. Moorman's photo shows what appears to be the upper portion of a fedora hat against the background of the sky at that location. The Willis photo was taken looking in the direction of the RR yard / Hat Man location. The foliage along the fence when looking directly at it is thin with a light background ... possibly the Dallas sky seen beyond it. There is no known object that I know of on the RR yard side of the fence that can account for the shape of the image blocking out that light colored background. Equally rounded shoulders shape ... head/hat(?) shape ... seen at the location of the LOS one would have hat with Hat Man in position. The small foliage branches are easier to recognize when studying more of the photo. Those branches obsecure parts of the silhouette are near the fence between Hat Man location and the camera IMO. So as one might now see ... it wasn't the clarity of this object from the Willis photo Groden put in his book that is so important as it is the shape of the silhouetted figure in relation to where Hat Man was located. In Moorman's photo I see Hat Man as the only figure up near the fence anywhere near the corner. This has been referenced as a 'picasso' and I guess that is all that one got out of without thinking it through more, then the comment is expected. The use of this image was not chosen over an alleged better image like what has been said about making claims from a poor Moorman print. If there is a better Willis print anywhere, then it should make for a more reliable interpretation to be made. Bill Miller Edited June 13, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 (edited) I'm not a moderator, nor do I play one on TV...neither do I desire the position.BUT...after three pages of this alleged discussion, I'd like to know how it relates to a clearer understanding of the JFK assassination, or what new information it brings to light. All I see is a urination contest--to use more polite terms that I was originally thinking--that is unnecessarily wasting the bandwidth of this site [think about that the next time you get a "site unavailable--bandwidth exceeded" error message when trying to connect to this discussion board]. If you folks are simply out to flame one another, I suggest you confine it to PM's, and save the forums here for those of us who are serious about either learning something or asking questions. As a politically incorrect pundit once expressed it, "Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded." Can we agree to rise to a higher level...for the sake of the cause here, which last I knew was the discussion of the JFK assassination...? ************* Mark: call it what it is, a Barfing contest..... And just imagine, how some regard all this, such as those who replied at the beginning of this said thread... and went to the trouble to find what they had and posted such...... My, My how they must feel about their doing so now...... Call that what it was also.........Suckered...... Well, perhaps some have also learnt whom not to respond to again when such a request is made... as it was apparently and deliberatley used and planned as a lead in to what has now progressed..... IMO...... B...... Edited June 13, 2008 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Mark: call it what it is, a Barfing contest.....And just imagine, how some regard all this, such as those who replied at the beginning of this said thread... and went to the trouble to find what they had and posted such...... My, My how they must feel about their doing so now...... Call that what it was also.........Suckered...... Well, perhaps some have also learnt whom not to respond to again when such a request is made... as it was apparently and deliberatley used and planned as a lead in to what has now progressed..... IMO...... B...... If there are not clarifications made, then future discussions with the same confusion will be re-born again. Sometimes its best to address these issues and get through them than to deal with them everywhere else they have spread. I have seen this type of thing go on in the alteration threads a lot ... please feel free to speak-up in the same manner then too. Thanks B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 (edited) Mark: call it what it is, a Barfing contest.....And just imagine, how some regard all this, such as those who replied at the beginning of this said thread... and went to the trouble to find what they had and posted such...... My, My how they must feel about their doing so now...... Call that what it was also.........Suckered...... Well, perhaps some have also learnt whom not to respond to again when such a request is made... as it was apparently and deliberatley used and planned as a lead in to what has now progressed..... IMO...... B...... If there are not clarifications made, then future discussions with the same confusion will be re-born again. Sometimes its best to address these issues and get through them than to deal with them everywhere else they have spread. I have seen this type of thing go on in the alteration threads a lot ... please feel free to speak-up in the same manner then too. Thanks B I was expecting you to speak up first, and have not been disappointed.....you never do in that regard.. This it seems has been re-born again and perhaps again..and will again ??...and there has been no clarification... I have spoken up in the past...FYI..... So take your eh?? to someone else.......your just barfed because you got suckered in also, but in a much bigger way... you fell in the hole.... Thanks also.... B..... Edited June 13, 2008 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts