I am young and not as smart as you.....and I believe that(lol....seriously).....I read and do not post but what I recognize is that you are always saying you talked with gary mack and have visited DP...... I have visited DP too....big deal.....one thing I have to say and one question.......DP is such a small place....tiny actually....and on a huge INCLINE that no one understands unless you have been there........how could pretty much everyone say the repeated shots came from the knoll??......I am of the assumption you are a LN person?.....I am not.....but your posts are very tiring....does that make sense.......thanks and good luck in your endeaver?

Perceptive Tom.....wisdom wins the day, everytime!

Mr. Kiehl,

Sometimes visiting the Plaza is critical when looking for perspective. I recall a discussion last year concerning who Bowers could see from the Tower(this was with respect to the men on the steps). Realizing that most of the interpretations are opinions, I went to DP and stood where Hudson stood, and could not see the Tower. That is why alot of folks suggest a trip, for it settles questions in one's mind.

And from what I've read from those "tiring" posts of Bill's, he is most certainly not a LN--he believes in a grassy knoll shooter, and has argued this many times. The question on some of the threads is on the position of the shooter, and folks are pretty grounded in their own ideas.

If you thought he was a LN from his antialteration views, well, there are those would believe that if one disagrees with alteration, they are in the LN category. The Alteration/antialteration arguments are the JERRY SPRINGER show of the message boards. They certainly get alot of hits by readers, and get pretty heated..

correct that: "wisdom wins the day, most of the time!"

I think one should not just visit Dealey Plaza, but take the photographic record with them and spend as much time as possible studying the geography and the angles involved. I have stayed as long as nine days at a time while putting in 5 to 8 hours a day. While I have not counted my hours spent testing the assassination images, I am certain that it is higher than several hundred hours all toll.

I am not impressed with your alleged study of my post. I have said that there was a conspiracy in my view more than any one else on these forums. This ranges from my belief that Badge Man is real - to Gordon Arnold being correct - to believing Ed Hoffman and what he witnessed - to Connally being wounded through the chest at a time that his right wrist was too high in the air to account for one bullet causing all of his wounds. I believe that a shot was fired from the location of the Hat Man location and have argued in support of that position more times than I can count. I believe the autopsy photos do not depict the truth about what the Dallas doctors described pertaining to the avulsion to the back of the President's head. Anyone who says after reading my countless post concerning these conclusions that I openly hold that will then state that I am a LNr is ignorant of the data available to the contrary or is aware of it and merely spreading disinformation for their own agenda. To have so grossly misstated my position and to assume that I am a LN supporter now makes me wonder just what was your purpose for starting a thread making claims that you knew or should have known to be totally false. I do however understand your not liking my responses for anyone who has misstated the record as you have concerning my position on the assassination ... they will not be a fan of mine and I see that as a good thing.

And if it appears that because I do not support poorly thought-out alteration claims that I am then a LN supporter, then a list of other conspiracy believers like Groden, Conway, Simkin, Healy and the list goes on must also be LNrs in your view.

Respectably,

Bill Miller

Bill:

May I ask...Do you believe in any alterations..

Thanks....

B.....

Respectably?

Jack

Bill,

You can lead a horse to water, but if you have to drown them to get them to drink, you are still left afoot.

Do not allow yourself to be bogged down by foolishness, as it is so easy to do.

Oh yea, something my grandfather used to say comes to mind.

"Never argue with a fool, after awhile folks watching wont be able to tell the difference."

Hi B,

As I thought was stated in my previous response, "I believe the autopsy photos do not depict the truth about what the Dallas doctors described pertaining to the avulsion to the back of the President's head." I do believe that something doesn't seem right about the Backyard photos of what is alleged to be Oswald holding a rifle. That doesn't mean that I am correct, but from my own limited observations and experience ... I find them suspect.

I wish alteration of the assassination images was true for I would as happy as anyone to expose such deceit, however I have reviewed the alteration claims made to date and have found them to be unfounded based on my observations. Because of that reason, I have found it somewhat suspicious that those who are making such earth-shattering claims seem to have done nothing to have them expertly evaluated for no other reason that to validate their claims.

Bill Miller

David, Its a shame that you never seem to contribute to any wisdom being offered. Instead we get garbage like these remarks of yours taken from this forum ...

"Actually Eugene a few of us think he's vieing for a position at the TSBD! Imagine that, if you will. I graciously noted to Bill Miller some time ago, that I'd write him a letter of recommendation concerning his graphics and composing abilities. I haven't heard back, yet. [sigh]

Also, a few years back I told Bill I 'd recommend him for a job with ADOBE (you know, the Photoshop folks), I did some on-camera work with John Warnock, CEO and founder Adobe, Inc., way back in the early Adobe ILLUSTRATOR (Adobe's first image software package) days, what 20 years ago, maybe more.... I could hook him up, alas -- he refused! My good will has run the limit, and I see yours has too!

KUTGW!

David Healy
"





just the facts son, just the FACTS! So run along, do something constructive, make a .gif or something... Seeya round the hood, Champ!





Been going on for years... neither can help his-self. Some think they've never been asked to write a article, perhaps its simple jealousy? Some think its more serious, unrelated to JFK assassination research, a defect of character, if you will.

Does Jack have a right to be cautious and/or return slights. Of course he does, I suspect he's the only JFK researcher posting to this board that has been physically attacked (while he slept), stabbed multiple times and nearly died from same assault (related to his research, eh? Who knows!)....




post the proof -- Miller's phone call doesn't cut it, nor is it proof here or anywhere else, champ! Just another Lone Nut opinion.... So, how do YOU know the top of the MC windshield is 58" off the ground in the Moorman 5?



We've the BEST (Costella's) of the worst Z-film/frames, you're correct! When one realizes there are (6th Floor Museum?) 35mm slides or 4x5 trannies taken of Z-film frames, access to those either sets, with in-camera Zapruder film ccomparison and confirmation would get us well on down the road...




Measure what, champ? The actual windscreen as it was on the actual limo escort motorcyle on 11/23/63...? Where, when, who was there (when you measured the attached windshield), and a verifiable affidavit with your measurements/ findings, complete with DPD motorcycle ID & Registration number. AND a DPD statement stating that yes indeed, the motorcyle windscreen you measured was from that very motorcycle displayed in Moorman 5 photo, left rear limo position adjacent to Elm Street north curbing (and in DP that day). Just post the evidence, big guy! No time for nonsense and/or opinions.



If you can't post Lamson's measurements-evidence w/affidavit there's nothing to talk to you about. I could care less if Harley of Harley-Davidson told you anything... somebody told me so-so, I posted on so many forums.... yadada, yadada -- nonsense, doesn't prove a damn thing.... Just post your proof with affidavit, that the left rear motorcyle cop closet to the north curb of Elm Street as depicted in the Moorman 5 photo, that to the top of THAT windscreen is 58" from the street surface.


Stay on point, Bill, you can't deal with two lines of thought at the same time...




sharing an TSBD office these day's? LMAO? btw, Why don't you ask Gary Mack about Badgeman, he's the co-creator of Badgeman, who better to ask, than the TSBD museum curator?



just post the 58" evidence Craigster -- regarding your "rabid dog" comment; you do indeed have a magnificent imagination just like most of your postings -- there's no need for hot wind, Craigster, just your proof, please. If you can't post it, you ain't got it...

Those NASA photo kids must be handing you your hat, again?



ouch..... oh-wee LMAO, you know we CT's don't trust you Lone Nutter any further than we can throw your sorry asses.....

Again, if you can't post your proof, you don't have PROOF, period! 53", 58" 64" or higher which is it? Show us the methodolgy, documentation and verification, till then your claims are empty words, like nearly everything you post...

Not until THEN, when it comes to the case related pictorial evidence, you are irrelevant.

Seeya around the hood, champ!"


But there was this one time that you were forced to actually say something that was worth reading and it went like this ....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years"

___________________________________________

Bill,

In my humble opinion this is your best post so far.

It does get confusing trying to follow yours and Duncan's and "Smile's" arguments against each other (i.e. you versus them and vice versa) on any given thread, and it is rather time consuming and a bit frustrating as well. After reading your post, I now know what you believe in and can go back and read those earlier "Bill-Duncan-Smiles" threads and they will make more sense to me. My only suggestion is that you try to be a little bit less defensive-- you don't have to call anyone a fool or foolish or say that somebody writes garbage, etc. No need to bring yourself down to your opponents' levels-- you only demean yourself by doing so. (Most of us can detect overt silliness and/or malodorous refuse, etc, by ourselves....) FWIW.

Thanks,
--Thomas
___________________________________________

I don't know about anyone else but after a hard-days-work putting back endless documents and posts about the JFK assassination, I like to kick back with some Healy/Miller exchange. One must admit there is a little Ignatius J. Reilly in Bill Miller, if one is familiar with the literary character.

Otto.

Thanks, Tom. It is a good thing to debate and test the evidence and I for one welcome it. Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a fool, but I can feel that their opinion is foolish based on their presentation of it. Many times like with the alteration debate ... it isn't about the evidence with these people, but rather its presented with a cult-like mentality that can be very misleading to anyone who doesn't know better. I challenge that position, not because I think you and others cannot see the flaws in it, but rather to show those who are not as familiar with the photographic record to see how these claims come about. There are students that come to these forums to research the assassination and I think it is important to point out how easy it is to get taken in on a conspiracy or lone assassin claim by not taking all the available evidence and weighing it against the other. These alteration claims for instance remind me of a magicians trick where they attempt to divert your attention away from reality so to give the illusion that they have somehow done something magical. It gets very frustrating when watching these sort of things going on. The photographic record intrigues a lot of people because photos are something we all can relate to. However, misreading them, not knowing their history, or not knowing how to cross reference them does not constitute conspiracy. (smile~)

Bill

'Bill Miller' dronned

[...]

Thanks, Tom. It is a good thing to debate and test the evidence and I for one welcome it. Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a fool, but I can feel that their opinion is foolish based on their presentation of it. Many times like with the alteration debate ... it isn't about the evidence with these people, but rather its presented with a cult-like mentality that can be very misleading to anyone who doesn't know better.

dgh: and you know better? praytell your qualifications supporting your contention your a "photo analyst? (as old Evan would say: "sounds like a fair challenge", eh? ***

I challenge that position, not because I think you and others cannot see the flaws in it, but rather to show those who are not as familiar with the photographic record to see how these claims come about.

dgh: excellent disinfo tactic, been used for years***

There are students that come to these forums to research the assassination and I think it is important to point out how easy it is to get taken in on a conspiracy or lone assassin claim by not taking all the available evidence and weighing it against the other.

dgh: now you're protecting students for what? Up to 90% of the USofA believes JFK was murdered through a conspiracy.. the rest of the known world KNOWS a conspiracy murdered JFK, so what are you protecting students from? Sounds like a PR job for the City of Dallas***

These alteration claims for instance remind me of a magicians trick where they attempt to divert your attention away from reality so to give the illusion that they have somehow done something magical.

dgh: ROFLMFAO, just good old research William Miller me-boy.... and you're qualifications for photo research is what again? ***

It gets very frustrating when watching these sort of things going on.

dgh: murder is a frustrating gig, there ole Bill..... getting to the bottom of one, moreso. As they say "gird those loins then press on" ***

The photographic record intrigues a lot of people because photos are something we all can relate to. However, misreading them, not knowing their history, or not knowing how to cross reference them does not constitute conspiracy. (smile~)

dgh: "we all relate to"? What are you going on about? -- Re the above, I suspect that'll impress Gary Mack..... Certainly full of yourself, eh? ****

Bill

___________________________________________

Bill,

Thanks.

--Thomas
___________________________________________

Disjointed ramblings do not educate, but only expose the uneducated. Click to view attachment

thanks for the responses.......BMiller I never knew from what I have read that you were a CT.....if you can continue......what happenned ?....do you agree on how small and inclined DP is?!! thank you...

In the future you may wish to read more than the responses made by David Healy. In fact, I'd be most curious to know just exactly what you ever read that would cause you to make such a gross misstatement of fact concerning me being a lone assassin supporter???

And yes, Dealey Plaza is a small area and a beautiful one for such a tragic event to have occurred there.

Bill Miller

I have not read any Dh responses......I just wanted to ask you a few questions.....and the reason was you just seemed offensive on why I posted in the first place....are you just determined to be "right".....and please I am not getting into a pissing contest....and that is why I posted...thanks....tom

To address your question as to why I thought you were a lt theorist....I never knew or cared....I'm just learning and I never read your posts....but I am glad as far as the evidence is that you are a ct....tom

bump

You assumed that I supported the lone assassin conclusion ... presumably from reading my post. Your answer didn't seem to say why you assumed that I was a LN supporter. You say you never cared one way or the other, but yet you started a thread in my name. The evidence of the JFK assassination is clearer to me than your response, but what the heck ... maybe its just me.

Bill

I agree with Tom, from your posts I’m convinced that you are a LN supporter. Instinct!! You have an answer to most all conspiracy theories to debunk them... that's why you received the MF award. When was the last time you started a thread? Why do you bully the men on this forum and are sweet as pie to the women members?

Do me a favor, next time you post the same thing over and over again about another member include the word "mmmrrrrraaappp" because you sound like a parrot!!!

Don

Beetle,

Then your instincts are incorrect. Bill is no more a Lone Nut supporter than Jack, David or many others.

What does his starting a thread have to do with anything? Is he required by some law to begin new threads in order to be able to reply to threads begun by others?

As for bullying, you should read more of the existing threads, its pretty much a give and take around here.

What is wrong with debunking a conspiracy theory that does not work? It sounds as though you are saying that because Bill debunks some theory, he must be a lone nut, which is as irrational as your parrot comment.

I think Bill has done some excellent work. I may not agree with all of it in totem, but I believe much of the work is very good. I would say the same of Jack White. We do not all agree, that is why is is called debate.



Mike

It doesn't have anything to do with the issue ... its a magicians trick to divert peoples attention away from a flawed proclamation.





I often times wonder if there are those here who post such foolish things like Don did so to make it appear they are CTs, when in reality their only goal is to make all CTs look like utter idiots so when a good CTs claim is made, then it can be brushed off by referring back to their cult-like mentality. I guess a simple way of saying it is that its a form of counter-intellgence at play by showing little to no intelligence to achieve a hidden agenda! (smile~)

Bill Miller

for a Lone Nut, Miller is not bad.... when he gets educated in film compositing (5-10 years down the line) we'll finally have something to talk about.... till then more of the same BS from BM

"A delusion is a belief that is clearly false and that indicates an abnormality in the affected person's content of thought. The false belief is not accounted for by the person's cultural or religious background or his or her level of intelligence. The key feature of a delusion is the degree to which the person is convinced that the belief is true. A person with a delusion will hold firmly to the belief regardless of evidence to the contrary. Delusions can be difficult to distinguish from overvalued ideas, which are unreasonable ideas that a person holds, but the affected person has at least some level of doubt as to its truthfulness. A person with a delusion is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real."

That's the beauty of talking with people like Groden who have even more experience than that. But as you know, there is also getting caught up on Kodachrome II film and its properties. Let us know when you get up to speed with Zavada. LOL!!!

Old Bruno Maggli Groden? C'mon Miller don't go delusional on us, now.... Zavada, hell son, Zavada withdrew from the 2003 Univ of Minn Zapruder film symposium.... I showed up.... come to think of it, you HID too!

You're way out of your league son..... get Gary Mack some coffee or something - be useful for a change....

The word "foundation" trip you up, son?

_________________________________________

Exactly.
Good post, Mike.
(Emphasis added by me.)

--Thomas
_________________________________________

Maybe Zavada heard that only a few boobs were going, so why waste his money and time on such a spectacle. After all ... that was the "Alteration crowds' event and had nothing of merit to offer ... and how do I know that you ask ... because you were there and years later were posting that you had seen no proof of alteration.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15

post #19

David Healy: I go with the Z-film is altered ...

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Feb 4 2007, 01:12 AM

David Healy: I go with the Z-film is altered ...


Please feel free to add my name to this listing as well!

Which of course adds no validity to the statement of alteration, yet, when an absolute "LNer" is willing to climb out on this limb, then one just may want to give the statement due consideration.


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

I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record and the witnesses statements and testimonies. I have studied the case for over 25 years[/i
]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bill, it is neither now much nor how long one has "studied" something that has relevance.
Primarily, it is what one has learned from such an endeavor.


With all of the considerably reliable witnesses who stated that it was the SECOND shot which struck JFK in the head (the Z313 impact), as well as that testimony regarding the third shot fired and the approximate location of the Presidential Limo when this shot was fired, to include the testimony of James Altgens regarding having observed the LAST shot fired striking JFK in the head, exactly why was it that you failed to resolve these simple issues, and apparantly believe the WC fairy tale in regards to THE SHOT THAT MISSED?

ESPECIALLY! When the WC also informed us that the Z313 imnpact was at survey stationing 4+65, as well as also informing us that the US Secret Service determined that the impact location for the LAST/THIRD/FINAL shot fired was at survey stationing 4+95, some 30 feet farther down Elm St. and directly in front of James Altgens position (as he so stated).

Can we assume that you have "studied" the witness testimonies, yet failed to understand the significance which these testimonies tell us?

As regard the photgraphic evidence, it took me all of 35 seconds or less to look at the Altgens/Z255 photo and the WC's re-enactment photo:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0054a.htm

To determine that this was a completely phony "re-enactment" photo which was taken from a totally different location than James Altgens was actually located when he took his photo.

Now, I must admit that it did take a little "extra effort" to ultimately determine the exact and true location of James Altgens, as well as piece together the pieces of the puzzle as to exactly why the WC attempted to not even call Altgens to testify; why the WC determined that there was nothing past Z-frame 334 worth publishing for us to see (which was prior to Altgens & the second yellow stripe coming into view in the film); why the "movement" of Altgens position in regards to the phony WC re-enactment photo; as well as why the WC "moved" Altgens position back up Elm St. past the location of Moorman/Hill, and far closer to the TSDB.

Now, just in case that you still have not figured it all out, it has to do with the impact location of the LAST/THIRD/FINAL shot fired and it's impact into the head of JFK as well.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm

Mr. ALTGENS - There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty.

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

I would suppose that it would be asking far too much for for one to expect of a "Researcher", that they not only read and understand the witness testimonies, but that they also be able to correlate this verbal evidence with the photographic evidence as well.



Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

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

"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.
As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence"



P.S. The "Blood Spatter" work which you apparantly fell for is refuse!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=4022

[i]It is very misleading, and borderline unethical to insinuate scientific work when there has been none. Even a casual read through forensic topics for high school students on the internet would disprove most of the erroneous claims on this page.


http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...id=17&page=

26. OF COURSE, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THE BONE, BULLETS, BLOOD AND BRAIN THAT WERE FOUND IN FRONT OF KENNEDY THAT ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDED AND CONSISTENT WITH FORWARD HEAD SPATTER AND A REAR HEADSHOT.
Gutierrez response: I have not disregarded anything; I simply used the expertise and training I possess to interpret the evidence in the correct manner. Zimmerman and I both agree the bone, blood and tissue in front of Kennedy are forward spatter. We just disagree about how it got there. Remember I didn’t just read a book and do a few experiments; I am a Bloodstain Pattern analyst.


1. THEREFORE, SINCE ONLY TWO SPATTER PATTERNS ARE EVIDENT, ONLY ONE SHOT HIT PRESIDENT KENNEDY. THE ABOVE STATEMENT DOES NOT ADDRESS LOCATION OF THE ENTRANCE OR EXIT WOUNDS.
Gutierrez response: It has never been my objective to address the precise location of the entry or exit wounds. That area of expertise is best left to persons with the necessary knowledge of the medical evidence.


3. TWO BULLET FRAGMENTS WERE FOUND IN THE FRONT SEAT OF THE LIMOUSINE AND WEIGHED 44.6 AND 21.0 GRAINS. THE FBI FOUND THREE SMALL LEAD PARTICLES, WEIGHING EACH BETWEEN .7 AND .9 GRAINS, IN THE LEFT FRONT JUMP SEAT.
Gutierrez response: The location of lead fragments within a crime scene is not used in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis. As this is not an acceptable technique used in bloodstain pattern analysis, it is not appropriate for me to comment on them.

4. SMALL RESIDUE OF LEAD WAS FOUND ON THE INSIDE OF THE WINDSHIELD WITH SMALL CRACKS INDICATING THAT A BULLET FRAGMENT HIT THE WINDSHIELD ON THE INSIDE.
Gutierrez response: Using the location of lead residue within a scene is not they type of evidence used in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis since there may have been multiple shots from multiple directions. What is used is blood.

5. A DENT IN THE CHROME STRIP SURROUNDING THE WINDSHIELD WAS FOUND AND CONSISTENT WITH BEING HIT FROM A FRAGMENT OF THE FATAL SHOT.
Gutierrez response: Bloodstain Pattern Analysis does not include evaluation of vehicle damage. It simply evaluates the presence of physical evidence in the form of stains left from the physics of a traumatic event. This information is not the type of evidence used in this field. Additionally, in my opinion stating the dent is consistent with the fatal headshot is a huge assumption. More than one shot was fired, so it is inappropriate to make such a absolute statement and attribute all fragments or damage to the vehicle as having come from the fatal head shot.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, can we sufficiently state that in this "resolution", the researcher has basically stated that one is to ignore absolutely all other forms of physical evidence which is known to exist, and thereafter base this hypothetical theory on some "voodoo" method of looking at the Z-film.

Last time that I checked, that was referred to as the "Rectal Extraction" method of research!


Would everyone who fell for this please raise their hand, stand up, and then exit the classroom!

For clarification ... your statement goes to thinking the film is altered and not meant that you double-talk like David Healy does - right?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years




http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15

post #19

David Healy: I go with the Z-film is altered ...

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Feb 4 2007, 01:12 AM



I agree with your statement. I had to write something about myself to shut Healy up. As far as the length of time ... there are reasons why there are levels of education that come along with degrees, so it seems that the more one has been taught ... the more they will know compared to someone who hasn't. For instance, I dwell in the photographic evidence and wouldn't be so foolish as to try and tell a blood spatter exert that I know more about their trade than they do.




I learned along the way that two people can see the same event - tell it differently - and both be telling the truth because they are only telling what they recalled whether it was right or wrong. The WC re-enactment photos do not interest me ... what interest me is going to Dealey Plaza and standing where Ike did and shooting his photo for myself, which I have done. This was done because I was interested in the information that was in Ike's photograph.




I agree, but with also keeping in mind that people, especially under stress, do not record things in their minds perfectly. I personally like to apply Occams Razor.







I would prefer to hear this come from someone who hasn't said that they didn't bother with it because they don't believe in it. You are not educated enough to discuss blood spatter evidence. Contact Henry Lee and see if he offers a different opinion to Sherry's ... then I would find that worth the time to read.






Are you talking about your post and are you considering yourself the teacher????

For clarification ... your statement goes to thinking the film is altered and not meant that you double-talk like David Healy does - right?


[i]Actually! I have no idea as to whether or not the ORIGINAL Z-film has or has not been altered, and seriously doubt that any of us will ever see the ORIGINAL film in order to fully ascertain one way or another.

However, since all that we ever see are copies of copies, etc; then one can rest assured that what we are being fed is as phony as is the WC's THE SHOT THAT MISSED scenario. (which includes the SBT as well)


I dwell in the photographic evidence

You may "dwell" there, however, that I am aware, you most certainly have not added a great amount of knowledge and understanding to the manipulations of the photographic evidence.
Exactly why was it that I had to explain to the reading public about the manipulations of the Altgens/Z255 photo and re-enactment, while you profess some great amount of study of the photographic evidence?

and wouldn't be so foolish as to try and tell a blood spatter exert that I know more about their trade than they do.

Perhaps you may be of the opinion that it is "foolish" to inform someone who professes some expertise that their research protocal is BS, but having conducted a few research programs as well written a paper or two, I certainly have no qualms in that regards.
Obviously, along with many other items, you do not understand the concept of "Complimentary Science" as applies to Blood Spatter analysis and how it must correspond with and correlate to the other known physical facts.

Which by the way your expert apparantly does not understand either.

So, when some purported "EXPERT" ignores all established physical facts and then makes a statement as assinine as has been made in regards to the Blood Spatter, then it don't bother me an iota to inform as to exactly how stupid such a statement is and exactly how stupid anyone who believes and promotes the concept also is.

I learned along the way that two people can see the same event - tell it differently - and both be telling the truth because they are only telling what they recalled whether it was right or wrong. The WC re-enactment photos do not interest me ... what interest me is going to Dealey Plaza and standing where Ike did and shooting his photo for myself, which I have done. This was done because I was interested in the information that was in Ike's photograph.


[b]I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record [/b]


Excuse me! I have obviously been operating under the misconception that the photographs taken by James Altgens were a critical part of the "photographic record"!

Why not just come out and state that in your 25 years (or whatever) of purported research, you do not even have sufficient experience and/or qualifications to look at the Altgens Z255 photo and the WC re-enactment photo and tell that the two photographs were taken from a completely different location and alignment.

And, the "photographic record" is a chemical/mechanical process of imposing an image onto film. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the person taking the photo may or may not think that he sees.

I agree, but with also keeping in mind that people, especially under stress, do not record things in their minds perfectly. I personally like to apply Occams Razor.

"Stress" happens to be when you are the individual who is designated as the receiving end of the bullet.
Standing and watching an event transpire, without full understanding of exactly what is happening, is not normally a stressful event.
Just exactly how many of those witnesses is it that you think were so "stressed" out that they did not have sufficient memory recall to establish that it was the second shot which they observed strike JFK in the right rear high of the head?

"Occams Razor" , last time that I checked, had no references to the ability of an eyewitness to recall events, and were it that you were that knowledgeable in regards to Occam's Razor, then it most unlikely that you would have ever fallen for the WC's THE SHOT THAT MISSED scenario.

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

P.S. The "Blood Spatter" work which you apparantly fell for is refuse!


I would prefer to hear this come from someone who hasn't said that they didn't bother with it because they don't believe in it. You are not educated enough to discuss blood spatter evidence. Contact Henry Lee and see if he offers a different opinion to Sherry's ... then I would find that worth the time to read.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And therein lies you primary problem! That being, as simple as it was stated, you can not seem to even read and comprehend what was stated in regards to the "Blood Spatter'.

Now! One last time! Blood Spatter is a "Complimentary Science", which, when utilized in conjunction with the other known and established physical facts, can aid in an understanding of the overall event.

To look at some vague film, ignore multitudes of various established physical and forensic facts which are contradictory to the blood spatter hypothesis, and then state that JFK was hit in the head by a single shot from the front, is pure BS Science.

That you apparantly fell for and believed it is your problem, not mine. Personally, I am not that stupid or ignorant of the aspects of blood spatter or the established physical and forensic facts.
Thusly, it would appear that, since you fell for this garbage, that you are the one who is somewhat lacking in the education field of blood spatter analysis as well as all of the other known physical and forensic facts which totally "debunk" what you and a few others are attempting to promote.

Are you talking about your post and are you considering yourself the teacher????


Let's take inventory:

1. BM fell for, believed, and even promoted a completely BS hypothesis on Blood Spatter, which is contradicted by many of the cited references; contradicted by the established and known physical and pathological facts of the assassination;, and, does not even pass the simple test of the "common man" concept of rational thought.

2. BM has researched the "photographic record" for 25 years, yet has never taken the time and effort to look at the Altgens Z255 photo and compare it with the WC re-enactment photo, which would clearly demonstrate that these two photographs were not taken from the same location or alignment.

4. BM who is highly interested in researching the witness testimonies, never bothered to find out that the WC established the position of James Altgens at a point between the TSDB and the Moorman/Hill position, when in fact James Altgens was well past the location of Moorman/Hill and farther down Elm St. closer towards the underpass.

3. BM is highly interested in researching the witness testimonies, yet has never discovered that multitudes of highly reliable witnesses clearly informed and so stated that the Z313 impact to the head of JFK was the second shot fired in the shooting sequence.

4. BM is highly interested in researching the witness testimonies, yet has never discovered that James Altgens physically observed the impact to the head of JFK of the LAST SHOT FIRED, and since James Altgens was some 40-feet farther down the street from the Moorman/Hill location, then it would have been impossible for Altgens to have observed the Z313 impact (second shot) and thusly what he observed is exactly what he stated.
The LAST/FINAL/THIRD shot impact to the head of JFK, directly in front of where he was standing.



Now! From this, one could easily determine that BM most assuredly has nothing to "teach us", unless of course we merely want to run around and chase our tail as many have done for the past 40+years.

And, although I may not necessarily be the designated tearcher, neither am I the "dunce" who claims to have conducted research into this subject matter, yet clearly known nothing and believes BS on BS (Bull S**t on Blood Spatter).



Almost forgot! You fell for Al Carrier's BS line also, did you not?

Bill,

When are you going to come to the reality that Purvis is the only one who knows anything about anything. Professionals like Carrier and Sherry Feister are just mere idiots, although they managed to build a whole career around buffaloing folks.

Next time we talk Bill remind me to give you some info on the Son Tay raid as well as Jeffery McDonald.

Suck it up Williams. I'll go with Tom Purvis, okay -- he's a proven entity, you on the other hand, aren't....

And what does Son Tay and Jeff McDonald have to do with Sherry Feister, Al "in every post I'll give you my resume" Carrier and Bill Miller? Please.

appears we got us another Vietnam War historian with more inside scoop on Son Tay and Jeff McDonald -- methinks it's pen*s envy. You *sneaky petes* have ALL the charm... don't waste any on the peanut gallery, Tom....

David,

I am certainly no historian. And you are certainly free to follow whomever you chose.

I am simply smart enough to gather posts and review information. I suggest you do the same.

Personally Ill put my hat on proven professionals like Al and Sherry.

Son Tay, and the whole McDonald mess lends to credibility. Im sure you can figure this out with a little effort.

When are you going to come to the reality that Purvis is the only one who knows anything about anything. Professionals like Carrier and Sherry Feister are just mere idiots, although they managed to build a whole career around buffaloing folks



Your first named "professional" fell for the BS of Dangerous Dan Marvin, LTC, United States Quartermaster Supply Corps (Retired), as well as having made an attempt to pass himself off as having attended some "Scout Sniper" school at some mythological "Marathon Station", when in fact he was an MP in the US Army.

Your second named "professional" is of record stating that the Z-film serves as some form of factual evidence that JFK was struck in the head only one time, by a bullet fired from the front.
When in fact, here own cited reference, of whom I have long ago communicated with at least one, directly contradict this BS hypothesis, and in determination of this BS, ALL forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence which clearly demonstrates to the contrary (of the stated hypothesis) has been completely ignored.

Now, in event that you are stupid enough to believe either of these sources, then yoiu most assuredly fit into the nomenclature
which is so readily attached to those members of your branch of service.

Might want to read the facts that even a "non-military" oriented Chiropracter has sufficient cerebral matter to recognize that the BS is BS (Blood Spatter is Bull S**t)

When the "big scheme" of things is sorted out, at least I will be able to state that OF RECORD, none of the above hypothesis (Marvin; Carrier: &/or Sherry's) even came close to passing the "smell test".

As an ole country boy, BS is easy to recognize.

Son Tay, and the whole McDonald mess lends to credibility. Im sure you can figure this out with a little effort.



Well! For those who live in the Dallas area, they might want to give a call to George Petrie and/or Udo Walther who were in "D" Company, 6thSF when we interviewed for the event.*

Might also want to contact Perot's people and ask if one Cpt. Thomas Purvis declined an employment interview, since Udo not only accepted and went to work for Perot, but also married his private secretary.

As regards Dr. MacDonald, would you like for me to name most of those who were photographed carrying the body of Colette MacDonald into the JFK Chapel during the Memorial Service held for the family?
It includes myself; Cpt Tom Eggleston; Lt. Brown; Cpt. Williams; and a few others that I do not at this point in age recall.


In event that you knew much of anything then you would also know the direct linkage between the FBI's obfuscation of the JFK assassination evidence and the MacDonald evidence.

Suck it up Williams. I'll go with Tom Purvis, okay -- he's a proven entity, you on the other hand, aren't....



Personally, my recommendation would be that one merely stick with the simple facts.

Of course, there exist that old time honored aspect that one must first research and understand these facts.

And as far as the "film alteration" aspect goes, there are those who possess capabilities which by far exceed anything that I would ever come close to, and they are of the opinion that there is something "funny & phony" with what we are being fed as representing the intact Z-film.

Lastlyl, despite all of this, there continues to be "teaching points" which come forth by all concerned parties.

And, if one reads between the "assault lines" (assuming that one accepts the qualifications stated), then they can always pick up an additional reinforcement item.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...2726&st=225

Post #231


First off there is no range in the plaza that would require more than moderate skill to attain a hit.

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


P.S. The "range" was:

1. First shot/aka between Z206 to Z213:----------------------------------------------Approximately 184 feet.

2. 5.8 to 5.9 seconds later, Z313:(survey station 4+65)----------------------------Approximately 242 feet.

3. Approximately 1.9 to 2.0 seconds later: (Altgens impact @ station 4+95)-----Approximately 292 feet.*


*The "snap shot"/last shot was in reality the best/luckiest shot. However when one considers that the shooter had the entire back of JFK bent over and exposed, then it was not in reality that great of a shot either.

The Z-313 shot was a relatively poor shot as had it been 1-inch or so higher, it would have completely missed the head of JFK, as well as had the Presidential Limo slowed any more than it did, then the shot would have also gone over the head of JFK.

And, just as with the "Walker" shot, the first shot was an almost complete miss due to most probably the same inexperience of "scope shooting" at close ranges.

I'm glad and sad that I started this thread?.....

don't sweat it Tom Kiehl.... we FINALLY found out BMiller can spell my name correctly after 7 years.

Ya want "in-depth research" when it comes to events in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63? Tom Purvis is your guy (and a lot of it is right here in this forums archive)... the remaining forum posts concerning same events? Simple opinion and commentary (a lot of it trying to impress the City of Dallas AND The Sixth Floor Museum, lest I forget Bob Groden who lurks here )

Tom,

I think the last shot was insurance. It had to be. Up until that time there were no satisfactory hits attained. The shooters were running out of time, and running out of room. Once that limo reached the t.o.p it was game over.

I do not believe there was anything significantly difficult about any of the shots. Properly executed they should have all been significant strikes with no follow up needed.

I also wanted to ask you, from your Military Days, ever met a man named Arnold Murray?

Mike

I think the last shot was insurance. It had to be. Up until that time there were no satisfactory hits attained.


The "last shot"/scheduled to be #4, was found chambered in the weapon and was never gotten off.
Most likely due to time constraints as well as the fact that Clint Hill was now blocking the line-of-sight to target.

The third shot impact was directly in front of James Altgens position, and IS NOT the Z313 impact which occurred some 30-feet back up Elm St. prior.

The second shot impact/aka Z313, tore the top off JFK's head and ripped the upper and frontal lobe of his brain to shreds, therefore I must disagree with the concept that this was not a "satisfactory hit", as it alone was more than sufficient to have killed JFK.


ever met a man named Arnold Murray?

Not that I would recall! However, when one has been the Commanding Officer of two (of the three) divisions of the Specialized Training Department of Special Forces Schools (SCUBA & Jumpmaster), as well as an Instructor with the HALO Committee (the third division), then literally hundreds of persons from all branches of the services as well as a variety of foreign countries have crossed my pathway.



I frequently have difficulties in even recollection of the names of all of the instructors who served with me in these schools!

Not to mention other assignments.

Tom,

Interesting shooting sequence.

I was certainly referring to the 313 as the final shot, you contend there was one after that one?

I will drop you an email about Murray, I think that it is VERY likely you may have crossed his path.


Mike

I was certainly referring to the 313 as the final shot, you contend there was one after that one?


Hopefully, among other items, my epitath will read:

"He never believed the WC and/or THE SHOT THAT MISSED!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068a.htm

Perhaps a few comments as to exactly why any "shooter' would fall for and believe this garbage, would be appropriate.

Especially from anyone who recognizes the true "difficulty rating" of the shots as explained!

P.S. You were aware that LHO, for the most part was an excellent shot?

Tom,

I believe LHO was a better than average shot for civilian standards.


I do not know that with a marksman rating and a sharpshooter rating I would qualify him as excellent.

There is a lot to see in the z film, I myself have not positively settled on a shooting sequence yet. I do not hold with all the shots being fired from the Carcano, and certainly do not hold with this being a single shooter situation.

David, there is a forum doctor standing by in the event that you should ever post anything of substance on the JFK assassination rather than the usual disgruntled childish come-backs. As I recall ... it was YOU who had to ask me how I knew that the first shot came between Z186 and Z202.

You may notice that 'your guy' ... doesn't say the first shot came between Z186 and Z202, so he must know more than the witnesses who were there. Personally, I truly believe that there are those who are claiming to be CTs who are instead LNrs. That they operate looking like morons so to have other CTs lumped in the same pile as they - guilt by association as they say. The way I see it ... by embracing you - they cannot fail.

Bill Miller

Bill,

I can almost hear Duncan serenading David:

"Doctor Doctor give me the news, I got a bad case of the Zapruder film blues.....

No facts are gonna cloud my head, I got a bad case of the Zapruder film blues.....

1. LHO fired in the UPPER range of EXPERT in three out of five of the firing stations during boot camp rifle qualification.

2. Standing & unsupported, he was poor.

3. At the (if recalled correctly) longest range station, the winds had increased a large amount and he went through 4 or 5 windage adjustments attempting to compensate.

Nevertheless, his final score, even with a "non-qualification" at one station, was only a few points below the standard for Expert.

When firing from a fixed position, he was quite deadly!


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...hl=marksmanship


Pre-Qualification shooting of LHO

200 Yard Rapid Fire

Friday, Dec 21 (Qualification): Score of 48 out of maximum of possible 50.

Thursday, December 20 (practice): Score of 43 out of maximum of possible 50.

Wednesday, December 19 (practice): Score of 49 out of maximum of possible 50.

Tuesday, December 18 (practice): Score of 73 out of maximum of possible 80.

Monday, December 17 (practice): Appears to be a score of 46 out of maximum of possible 50.

Thursday: (prior week) first day of shooting practice: Score of 24 out of maximum of possible 25.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Each station carried a weight/maximum points of 50 points, for 250 points maximum score.

Marksmanship qualifications ratings for the earned scores were:

a. 190 to 209 score-----------------Marksman
b. 210 to 219 score-----------------Sharpshooter
c. 220 to 250 score-----------------Expert

Therefore, one had to shoot in the 88th percentile or above, in order to attain the "EXPERT" qualification.
(220 divided by 250 = .88)

December 21 Range Fire Qualification of LHO:

1. 200 yard Rapid Fire:-------------Score: 48 out of possible 50--------% rating:---96%
Classification for this shooting station:---------UPPER EXPERT range.

2. 300 yard Rapid Fire:-------------Score: 46 out of possible 50--------% rating:--92%
Classification for this shooting station:---------UPPER EXPERT range.

3. 500 yard Slow Fire:--------------Score: 46 out of possible 50--------% rating:--92%
Classification for this shooting station:--------UPPER EXPERT range.

4. 200 yard Slow Fire:--------------Score: 39 out of possible 50--------% rating:--78%
Classification for this shooting station:--------- BOTTOM range for Marksman qualification.

5. 300 yard Slow Fire:--------------Score: 33 out of possible 50--------% rating:--66%
Classification for this shooting station:-------Failure. Does not even qualify for Marksman.

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

* The 200 yard SLOW FIRE station is shot from the Off-Hand/ standing position in which the shooter must provide the stable platform for firing. It is one of the most difficult shooting positions for most to master and requires considerable concentration along with breathing control, etc;.

**Although the 300 yard "SLOW-FIRE" station was a complete failure for LHO, it is noted that wind speeds had increased from virtually ZERO at previous stations to 5mph by the time that he fired this station. And, during this firing station, his "Windage" sight adjustment was changed through four different adjustments in an attempt to get the correct sighting which would compensate for the wind speed increase.
Even with this, LHO managed a relative good "shot grouping", just that they were all concentrated just below and to the right of target center.



From this information, and that which demonstrates that LHO entered the USMC shooting virtually EXPERT from any stable firing position, one can see that given a fixed firing position such as a bench rest and/or a window ledge and cardboard boxes to sit and rest on, LHO easily fired in the UPPER EXPERT ranges for the USMC qualification.

His capability for "Free-Hand"/Off-Hand/standing & unsupported firing was marginal, and his virtual failure at the 300 yard Slow-Fire station is directly attributal to repeated attempts to correct for an increase in wind speed by changing his windage adjustment through 4 different positions through the course of the 10 shots fired.


Anyone who thinks that LHO was not an excellent shot, knows little of what they speak.

Now, had he been standing in the middle of a cow pasture with absolutely no means of support, then he most probably would have missed JFK on at least one of the three shots.

He was not in a cow pasture.

He was, for all practical purposes, firing from a sitting/bench rest position in which he could support his entire arms as well as the weapon for shooting accuracy. (see Bench Rest for shooting accuracy).

From which position, LHO entered the USMC shooting virtually uppermost ranges for EXPERT, and qualified on December 21 in the uppermost ranges for EXPERT, in a rapid-fire shooting environment.

Ask a Marine shooter about this.