Jump to content
The Education Forum

Where are the films and photos?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ashton, I have a feeling you could care less what I think, but I find your response lacking in the class I thought you had.

Michael, I care a great deal what you think, and have always valued your observations and thoughts on the topics at issue. Bill Miller ain't one of them.

I'm attempting herein to solicit interest in getting together a useful and as comprehensive as possible collection of the images from the Kennedy assassination. If there are any thoughts on that topic you'd care to contribute, I'd be vitally interested.

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I met Bill Miller in Florida several years before this Forum existed. In my opinion, Bill is the fellow on the right in that picture, and his current Forum picture looks just like the Bill Miller that I met.

I found Bill to be a likeable, sincere and well informed guy. We talked about a lot of things outside the realm of President Kennedy's murder.

I've told Bill before that I thought he spent too much of his time on the subject of Jack White. I don't see eye to eye with him on everything, although I do respect his opinions and the efforts he has taken to study the evidence in his areas of specialty.

Having said the above, I also have a lot of respect for Jack White, especially for the important work he did during the critical years when this case was still theoretically solvable.

I agree with Mike on both points. I met Bill last year in Dallas and he is definitely the man in the photograph.

I cannot understand why Bill spends so much time attacking Jack. I do not agree with a lot of his recent theories but he should be respected for his earlier work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I no longer wonder at all why there isn't a good central resource for JFK film and photos.

Nor do I any longer wonder why the world is constantly at war.

Nor do I any longer wonder at Congress.

If anyone is around to scratch out a final epitath for mankind in the green glass, I humbly submit this entire thread.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE:

I've been somewhat amazed at the seeming difficultly of locating anything resembling an easily accessible comprehensive repository of the known photos and films from the Kennedy assassination.

Image galleries:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKphotographs.htm

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri2/

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Marsh.html

As for the films available on the internet they are of such poor quality that they are not of much use.

The one film i did find very usefull however was the (Smith 2.avi) Zapruder zoomed in film.

If you download "Irfanview" from the internet for free, you can split the frames on this film and save them to your hard drive.

In conclusion, there ARE many images out there, you just need to know where to look,, if you need help to find them just ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I met Bill Miller in Florida several years before this Forum existed. In my opinion, Bill is the fellow on the right in that picture, and his current Forum picture looks just like the Bill Miller that I met.

I found Bill to be a likeable, sincere and well informed guy. We talked about a lot of things outside the realm of President Kennedy's murder.

I've told Bill before that I thought he spent too much of his time on the subject of Jack White. I don't see eye to eye with him on everything, although I do respect his opinions and the efforts he has taken to study the evidence in his areas of specialty.

Having said the above, I also have a lot of respect for Jack White, especially for the important work he did during the critical years when this case was still theoretically solvable.

I agree with Mike on both points. I met Bill last year in Dallas and he is definitely the man in the photograph.

I cannot understand why Bill spends so much time attacking Jack. I do not agree with a lot of his recent theories but he should be respected for his earlier work.

John...OF COURSE it is the same "Miller" you met in Dallas. But that is

not the same "Miller" I met in Dealey Plaza nearly 15 years ago. The

present "Miller" does not know crucial details of the "Miller" I met,

nor does he look like him. JFK study is filled with DUAL IDENTITIES.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Mike on both points. I met Bill last year in Dallas and he is definitely the man in the photograph.

I cannot understand why Bill spends so much time attacking Jack. I do not agree with a lot of his recent theories but he should be respected for his earlier work.

John...OF COURSE it is the same "Miller" you met in Dallas. But that is

not the same "Miller" I met in Dealey Plaza nearly 15 years ago. The

present "Miller" does not know crucial details of the "Miller" I met,

nor does he look like him. JFK study is filled with DUAL IDENTITIES.

Jack

Jack,

Dual Ids off the top of my head:

Richard Sprague, the Philadelphia prosecutor and the New England computer researcher;

Donald O. Norton and Donald P. Norton, the Oswald double, BettyMcDonald the stripper and the Magnolia Oil gal; Edward L. Keenan, the Harvard Russian specialist and the linguist; Mack Pate the radio reporter and the garage mechanci; Jim Braden the black guy in LA and the gangster; and I'm sure there are more that escape me at the moment.

And while perusing an interesting book at Boarders last week, I came across William "Bill" Kelly, an FBI agent assigned to the Miami office's "Tamali Squad," an interesting book that has a lot of Cuban angles.

I once tracked down an Army officer in DC who told me that I had the right name, same name, but wrong guy. He said he doesn't know the other guy I was looking for who had the same name, but he knew he was important because he was once invited to a reception at the White House, but didn't know why he was there because the invite was apparently for the other guy.

I haven't caught up with my Duel ID yet, but I know he's out there getting me in trouble all the time,

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Mark Valenti' wrote:

I agree with Mike on both points. I met Bill last year in Dallas and he is definitely the man in the photograph.

I cannot understand why Bill spends so much time attacking Jack. I do not agree with a lot of his recent theories but he should be respected for his earlier work.

dgh: some of us do, the short answer is simply; because he can --///

John,

He is. I have said in several posts I respect the work he has done. Nobody else has put in the effort that he has. But if he offers a theory that is obviously wrong and someone points it out, Jack calls that person names, followed quickly by his defenders.

In the past month, Jack has been demonstrably wrong several times and yet he never acknowledges this. Instead, he ignores the correction, accuses people of being mere provocateurs, and his Cheerleaders pile on. Lone Nutters. Newbies. But these wild theories add up. It all starts to reach a tipping point. And then even the serious researchers come off badly.

dgh: nonsense, most serious researchers here and elsewhere, post infrequently. Jack White wrote the book on JFK photo research, not to mention he has the inante ability to draw out the frauds, plain and simple -- he's been doing it for years...///

Let's put it this way: Say you had spent a year teaching your students how to build a car. One of your prized pupils begins coming to class with a theory that he can build a car with sticks and mud. You explain how this is incorrect - but the very next day he returns saying he can build a car with bubble gum and lemonade. Eventually, you forget how great a student he used to be, and you start thinking he's just being a wiseass or has turned a serious corner in his thinking.

dgh: how about this; your prized ex-student returns with years of auto manufactuing experience behind him, shows your new stock of students how, in the REAL world, to cut auto manufacturing time and costs by 80%. Think Detroit would be happy with that?

Your sticks and mud analogy remind me of that old 'feet of clay' story...///

I think Jack can stand the scrutiny. He has kept his eyes on the goal for years and shows no signs of stopping. But I do wish that he and his cheerleaders would consider the possibility that these issues can be considered and reconsidered and reconsidered endlessly in good faith.

dgh: there's all sorts of cheerleaders Mr. Valenti, the ones that know Jack [on this forum and others] are quite competent in their JFK research endeavours, one of the reasons we were invited here a few years back (along with driving traffic to this board of course). Not sure who or what your JFK field of endeavour is, perhaps we'll figure that out down the road, eh?///

If they think it's *all* figured out, settled once and for all, why do they continue to post here? Why not just crack open a bottle of Dom and retire?

dgh: Mr. Valenti, perhaps you can point to where anyone has stated it's "all figured out?" We were invited to this board to post, Mr. Valenti, perhaps its time for you to follow the Lone Nutter bouncing ball? Miller is real familiar with the bouncing, seek his counsel...///

MV

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton..."Miller" is irrelevant. He spends 24/7 trolling and debunking.

Relevant researchers have no apparent motive to do that. He never

posts original research...ONLY debunking. He cannot prove that he

is the "original Miller". He cannot prove that he is not "Larry Peters".

He specializes in ad hominem attacks while posing as an authority.

Someday somebody will investigate his background and find who

he really is.

Attached is a study somebody (I don't remember) did exposing

"Miller/Peters".

Jack

There was a line in the JFK movie that I think applies to the whining I am seeing on this forum concerning Jack's ridiculous postings and it went like this ... "Let justice be done though the Heavens fall." At one point on this forum I had Jack posting that he met me 6 years ago in DP when I gave him a Dillard 8 X 10 negative, which only I would have known this, besides Jack. (I see Jack's story has now grown to our meeting date to 15 years ago) I had also given a copy of the same negative to Groden only minutes earlier and I showed that negative to countless people at Lancer's conference during that time period, yet I was forced to tolerate nothing about the truth of what I was posting on, but rather the ranting of a senile babbling idiot going on about how I was some other guy. Jack could have viewed a copy of the Lancer conference for that year and he has said that he is friends with Robert Groden and despite my telling Jack that he could verify who I was by speaking to Robert - Jack chose not to. In other words, if Jack decides something is sinister, then he is going to not do what ever he can to find out differently.

Then Jack posted a photo of me and Larry Peters shaking hands with a caption asking the question as if something sinister was going on and it read 'What is Peters and Miller shaking hands about?' At that moment in time Jack didn't mind the idea that Larry and I were different people because he wanted to imply that we were plotting against him for what ever reason. Now Jack wants to imply that Larry and I are one in the same person despite John Simkin telling Jack otherwise in a past response to one of Jack's periods of paranoia. Let me share a line that I had gotten from one of the forum administrators concerning Jack ... "No problem. I was aware that you were working well with Lee until Jack entered the scene. Has that man got problems." Jack says that I cannot prove that Larry and I are not the same person. Well, let's see ... if we offer birth certificates, then we'll probably hear that the documents may be forgeries. If we offer photos, then they may be altered. If we have those who have met us say that we are not the same person, then those people are ignored and why ... because as I said - Jack believes only what he wishes to believe.

Mike Hogan has told me that I shouldn't waste so much time with Jack because I have destroyed the accuracy of his alteration claims so many times that anything now is just overkill. Mike may have a point. Then there are people like Ashton who cannot challenge the merit of the rebuttals concerning Jack's claims, so he whines and bitches about someone rocking the boat by calling Jack out on the rug for his remarks ... well, it has been suggested to me that Jack has a cult following and there are people who do not care if Jack is right or not, thus they do what they can to shift attention away from Jack's claims and try to make it appear as if Jack is just being attacked. Others have told me that some people are just ignorant concerning the area of the assassination that they are attempting to defend, so these people are easily persuaded by anything that sounds conspiratorial ... either way it doesn't matter to me because like the line from the JFK movie ... "Let justice be done though the Heavens fall" ... that's the way it has to be. This isn't a CT's or a LNr position, but one of just wanting researchers to be responsible when it comes to the evidence. I have stated that Jack had done some good work many years ago, but his alteration claims are nothing more than the result of poor research practices ... some of them being seen here in recent threads. Someone has asked why I am spending so much time on Jack and the answer is simple ... Jack is spending an equal amount of time thinking up poorly thought out observations in the name of alteration. I only wish the assassination films and photos were altered ... nothing would tickle me more, but let it be proven by thorough and responsible research instead of merely throwing xxxx at the wall in hopes something will stick. What saddens me is that there are clearly some select individuals who don't seem to think that JFK deserves better! To those same individuals I ask the following question ... When did they start thinking that JFK's murder getting a responsible and thorough investigation should take a back seat to Jack White??? There is a forum on the Internet that is designed to cater to Jack and people who couldn't care less about what really happened to President Kennedy. People like Ashton can go there and cheer Jack on over claims about lamb-chop and girls turning into boys, but when I was invited to come here it was said to me that this was an "education forum" pertaining to the evidence in JFK's assassination. In fact, I was once told that some people had limited image posting allowances, while on the other hand, I was given a higher posting allotment. The reason for this is simple and has been demonstrated when someone will post a poor quality image while claiming a girl has turned into a boy and I am able to come back and show what is clearly a cycle tire blocking out a woman's lower body by way of using better quality images.

Jack is now saying that I don't do any real research, well it seems that the person who gave me that allotment of posting space doesn't agree with Jack's assessment. I also take pride in the Mary Ferrell award that I received for the discovery of new evidence in the assassination of JFK. In recent times I don't know anyone who ever did overlays showing Connally's shirt cuff at the moment he took a shot through the chest. Those overlays show IMO that Connally's wrist is not in the right position for the SBT to have been accomplished. So why would Jack say that I have not done any real research ... it is said IMO because Jack sees anyone who points out the errors of his claims to be the enemy. It also seems that he has some narrow minded followers who also think in this manner. One poster here who never offers any research which doesn't seem to bother Jack, presumably because this person feels all the assassination images are suspect unless you can hold the originals in your hand, calls anyone who disagrees with Jack - a lone nutter. It doesn't matter to this bird that one has demonstrated that there was a conspiracy in JFK's murder ... he feels that it an all or nothing proposition. This is the type of mentality that is currently being demonstrated on this forum by a select few. And isn't it funny that those are the same individuals who are whining the loudest about why I would feel it necessary to respond to Jack's alteration claims. It is these individuals who don't seem to grasp the harm that has been done to ever getting a future inquiry done concerning any new evidence pertaining to the assassination. The next time some of you want to respond about Jack's treatment - take a moment and think about not only the treatment JFK got when he turned onto Elm Street on 11/22/63, but also think about the treatment he is getting on this forum. Does not JFK's memory deserve a voice ... I think it does!

Bill Miller

dgh: nonsense, most serious researchers here and elsewhere, post infrequently. Jack White wrote the book on JFK photo research, not to mention he has the inante ability to draw out the frauds, plain and simple -- he's been doing it for years...///

Jack also wrote the book in recent years on poor research by way of throwing xxxx on a wall in hopes something sticks. We have been continuously seeing Jack's ability to point out frauds ... how else would we have known a white woman was black or that a motorcycle tire was in fact blue jeans.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found Bill to be a likeable, sincere and well informed guy.

Gee, I've heard the same kinds of opinions of Richard Helms and Ted Bundy.

Maybe some of you guys can form a "Bill Miller Admiration Society" and start a forum for it somewhere else with the free forum software that's available, and keep him coralled over there stroking and petting him (all posts must be in boldface only, of course), and maybe then there'd be some chance in hell of keeping a thread on topic in this forum.

Ashton Gray

So Ashton, you don't mind Jack saying what he did because you didn't suggest that Jack start a "Bill Miller non-admiration Society", but instead you only comment like some biased jack-ass when someone responds to remarks concerning me that Jack started himself. Is there anything about Jack's alteration claims you'd like to discuss or are you merely interested in everyone only hearing what Jack has to say?

Let me ask you something ... Jack posted a claim where he had chose the only frame that would make a woman's legs align with a cycle's tire in order to be able to say that she was now a boy in blue jeans. Jack also did the same thing in the Martin film capture - Jack had chose the only frame that would blend Jackie's glove with the black man's clothing who was standing along Houston Street so to be able to bring up lamb-chop. Had Jack looked at the frames prior and/or after that instant, then he would have seen Jackie with an empty hand. To get the frames Jack chose in those two threads - he had to bypass those frames that clearly showed his observation to be wrong, so in your fair minded unbiased way ... how do you defend this pattern of selected frame choice that Jack has demonstrated? If you find that you cannot be unbiased, then tell me what your response would be had Brendan Slattery of done the same thing??? That's the difference between us ... whether it be a CT's claim or a LN'r claim, if I have looked at it and can see an error over what is being said - I can and have had no problem is saying it the way it is.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I hear you saying you are critical of Jack in order to further the true facts on the JFK Case. My problem with you has always been, that while some critical observations may be needed of Jack's and everyone's posts, your criticism are always IMO attacks and serve just the opposite end IMO as you state you wish to achieve.

Peter, you are another one who shows a very biased opinion of the things Jack says. Let my post be directed at Von pein or Slattery, then you would never have a negative thing to say about it. Your thinking is so biased that I can see that you are still a bit confused as why I respond to all Jack's claims in the manner that I do. Well, let me make this clear for I have said it before ... many of us don't have Jack's notoriety and with fame should come responsibility. People who know little of the assassination and who certainly won't have a way of checking the evidence for themselves will think that because Jack White says something ... that it must be true because most people believe that people of Jack's notoriety want to be sure to have run a thorough inquiry before attaching their name to something. If nothing else, the 'hoax' book that Jack participated in showed how silly errors could even fool what would be otherwise intelligent people at a first glance. The seriousness of this type of recklessness cannot be down played because it not only has misled those people who have no way of checking Jack's claims for accuracy, but it also has given ammunition to those who want CT's to not be heard and what a better way to do that than to show how badly researched many of their views are.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't give up Ashton. It is a great idea and one that should have been implimented long ago....as you can easily see there are agent provocateurs, idiots, lethargy and dissention between reserachers. It is still do-able, at least in part.

Thanks, Peter.

I have no doubt that it is do-able, and I'm certain that it's a worthwhile pursuit.

But it won't get done through a forum that apparently is a petri dish for such agent provocateurs and idiots.

Read this thread again if you think for a moment that it's otherwise.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I hear you saying you are critical of Jack in order to further the true facts on the JFK Case. My problem with you has always been, that while some critical observations may be needed of Jack's and everyone's posts, your criticism are always IMO attacks and serve just the opposite end IMO as you state you wish to achieve.

Peter, you are another one who shows a very biased opinion of the things Jack says. Let my post be directed at Von pein or Slattery, then you would never have a negative thing to say about it. Your thinking is so biased that I can see that you are still a bit confused as why I respond to all Jack's claims in the manner that I do. Well, let me make this clear for I have said it before ... many of us don't have Jack's notoriety and with fame should come responsibility. People who know little of the assassination and who certainly won't have a way of checking the evidence for themselves will think that because Jack White says something ... that it must be true because most people believe that people of Jack's notoriety want to be sure to have run a thorough inquiry before attaching their name to something. If nothing else, the 'hoax' book that Jack participated in showed how silly errors could even fool what would be otherwise intelligent people at a first glance. The seriousness of this type of recklessness cannot be down played because it not only has misled those people who have no way of checking Jack's claims for accuracy, but it also has given ammunition to those who want CT's to not be heard and what a better way to do that than to show how badly researched many of their views are.

Bill Miller

Must be a very, VERY difficult forum for you to participate in, eh? What with being the ONLY non-confused, non-reckless, non-mentally challenged member regarding DP/JFK related film/photos? Throw in feeble attemps being this forums self-designated house mother, mental faculty analyst, photo editor, postage stamp sized .gif photo animator and man, you've got yourself a *flaming* fulltime job...

I do have a question that causes me to have concern for your balance: how do you, Bill Miller know what someone, anyone, is thinking ...? How do you know that? Or is the answer simple; a plain case of J E A L O U S Y on your part? Perhaps you're coming to fragmented conclusions?

If Ashton pursues a combined JFK-DP-Assassination photo/film database-photo analysis project, he'll do just fine. Sprague clearly defines the subject matter, laid out a road map, and for those that write code, he also laid out 'key' terms. Not just for database purposes, for photo-film "investigative" purposes

After carefully re-reading the entire article, Sprague's Computers and Automation re JFK's Assassination, guess what? Your name appears no where, nor does mine, Gary Mack or Jack White's. However, Penn Jones, Harold Weisberg and Josiah Thompson names do [amongst many others], only one person I know of [on this forum] that has disussed the case with a few of them, Jack White!

You elevating yourself to that class of investigator? Let there be NO doubt; Thompson, Weisberg and Jones ARE/WERE successful investigators.

Another voice in the dark thinking book, perhaps? All you need is a publisher!

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton has bemoaned the state of this thread. Let's recap the posts and see where it went all screwy:

1. Ashton starts the thread asking for info about photographs.

2. John Dolva offers some helpful links.

3. Peter Lemkin applauds Ashton's question and complains about "Masta don' wanna show his cards and 'iz alwaz pullin' slight 'o hand"

4. Bill Miller responds by saying the Groden DVD can be purchased for as little as ten bucks.

5. David Healey suggests Jack White and Gary Mack as sources for photos.

6. David Healey says "roflmao" again. Suggests Bill Miller is a disinformation agent.

7. Bill Miller responds to David Healy's attack by suggesting he (David) is schizophrenic.

8. David Healy calls Bill Miller a "pidly voice" Writes "roflmao" again.

9. Ashton Grey "PLONKS" and infers that Bill Miller is an incurable scumbag.

10. Bill Miller responds to David Healy's attack.

11. Ashton Grey thanks John Dolva for the information.

12. Jack White chimes in saying that Bill Miller isn't Bill Miller, and in any case, he is irrelevant. Posts photos of Bill Miller.

13. Brendan Slattery calls Jack White a putz.

14. Mike Hogan corrects the record, says Bill Miller is, in fact, Bill Miller. Says he likes both Bill Miller and Jack White.

15. MV chimes in his admiration for Bill Miller.

16. Ashton Grey alludes to the "nice guyness" of Ted Bundy and Richard Helms in discussing Bill Miller. Complains that the thread has been hijacked.

17. Mike Hogan suggests that Ashton Grey is a less classy guy than he had believed.

18. Brendan Slattery says Ashton Grey is not a nice guy.

19. Ashton repeats his desire to create a photo database.

20. John Simkin says Bill Miller is really Bill Miller. Says Bill spends too much time attacking Jack White.

21. MV spews about why people question Jack White on his research techniques.

22. Ashton Grey writes humanity's epitath.

23. Robin Unger offers some helpful links.

24. Jack White says that the JFK research community is full of dual identities.

25. Bill Kelly tries to cool down the thread with a humorous assertion about dual identities.

26. Peter Lemkin encourages Ashton Grey to keep on keeping on.

27. David Healy responds to MV, saying he should follow the "Lone Nutter bouncing ball."

28. Bill Miller explains his responses to Jack White.

29. Bill Miller wonders why others don't objectively critique Jack White.

30. Peter Lemkin says Bill Miller doesn't merely critique, he attacks.

31. Bil Miller suggests that Jack White's friends treat him with kid gloves, which harms the possibility of reopening the investigation.

32. Ashton Grey calls the Forum a "petri dish for such agent provocateurs and idiots"

This stuff deserves its own TV series...

MV

don't quit your day job... and above all: follow that Lone Neuter bouncing ball...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't quit your day job... and above all: follow that Lone Neuter bouncing ball...

Another sad attack of Internet Tourette's Syndrome. ROFLMAO

forgot you said it deserves a TV series? Get to it Mr. Valenti, that IS your day job isn't it?

What is it with you Lone Neuter's, can't spell a guys last name correctly --- sheesh, another graduate of the Lamson school of etiquette...

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...