Bill Miller

I think the difference is that Ed had told people of what he saw, so there was support for his telling his story early on. So let me ask a question that goes to what you implied IMO .... Which is better - the truth told right away to a friend or family member or a lie told later to someone of an authority figure? Bill Miller

Groden has said to me in the past that the photo you speak of in his book was not a computer generated photo and that it was a true enlargement. You may wish to discuss the matter with Robert. Bill

If what Arnold said was true, then neither he nor the two cops wore green T-shirts. None of them wore short sleeves either. Bill

To understand how the shadows should look or in what way they would be cast - look at the witnesses on the ground such as the Newman's. Bill

I was thinking the same thing. As I stated before to Miles and the forum ... Ed did not have a good comprehension of the English language and this made things frustrating for interpreters. In Ed's mind - he probably did think the season greetings were from the Kennedy Family. I am always amazed at how fast someone like Miles will claim something about Ed's veracity without first considering some of the more plausible explanations. Bill

I would say that you have colored in the tree foliage and made it look like a greenish T-shirt on one figure and mistook the tree foliage as the other guys face when I believe him to have his back to the camera. The reason for the latter is that, if a cop as Arnold claimed he was, then I do not see any signs of a badge, pin, or anything else on his clothing which would not be seen on someones back. Bill

Miles, can you prove anything you have said above? For instance, Hoffman saw the smoke ... how many people on the underpass saw the smoke, as well ... 6 or more??? Bill Miller

Didn't Ed's book say something about his telling his family and friends about what he had soon soon after it happened? I am not aware of any trains on the underpass or moving as the assassination was taking place. Does anyone have information to the contrary? Bill

But its the best that Miles has got going for him.

Well Jack ... when it blends the color of the fence and the silhouettes to the point of not being able to tell them apart from one another when the original images show a noticeable difference, then by definition it is called "altering" the image. al·ter (ôltr) v. al·tered, al·ter·ing, al·ters v.tr. 1. To change or make different; modify: Bill Miller

Jack, the source for that image was already posted ... it comes from Groden's book "The Killing of a President". That would be (according to Groden) an enlargement not created by computer, but through a dark room. Bill

I agree Alan. The same could be said about a circus passing by because you hear circus sounds and see circus shapes in silhouette, but who is to say that it wasn't really a circus at all. The point about Gordon is that he said her was approached immediately after the shooting by two men in police uniforms - the two individuals seen in Towner #3 taken immediately after the shooting are at the right location to fit Arnold's story and the two of them sre wearing what looks to be dark clothing which is what a policemen wore on 11/22/63. Bill

I guess what was confusing is where you said the following ... "When the red box comes up, watch who's in it, then take a look at who is still leaning over Mrs.Hester. (red arrow)" It came from - "then take a look at who is still leaning over Mrs.Hester" Bill

Where to you come up with this stuff, Jack. For instance - what's with the color of the fence and how it blends into these men's waist area .... did you not post a message to Duncan saying to never alter a photo to support one's claim. The enlargement in Groden's book clearly shows the contour of these individuals bodies because the fence is lighter in color than they are. A crop from Groden's print is seen in post #80 of this thread. It is worth looking at once more. Bill Miller

I would sure like to hear more about the shadow being Mrs. Hester's for there is no way from where she was laying on the ground that her shadow could reach the wall of the colonnade. I look forward to having you clarify that claim. What original's are you talking about? I asked Gary Mack to view the original Bell Film and he said that it was much lighter than the poor dark images of Robert's on his DVD. That's one of the benefits of Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight tool. I agree that it is Charles Hester in the red box. I have never thought otherwise. It was the red arrow illustration that I questioned. Bill

I believe that the BDM is standing in the shade of the trees and the angle at which he is seen in relation to the sun makes him appear so dark. Below are two photos taken one after the other with the same camera and settings - the only difference is that the camera location shifted slightly between photos. The tree is actually a brownish gray color. By slightly moving the camera between exposures caused the tree to appear darker than in the other picture. And why would the government wish to retouch the BDM ... would not removing him altogether serve a better purpose. Who would know that this person wouldn't come forward, thus retouching the photo would be exposed as a fraud. Bill

When I said "I think" - it was in reference to whether or not if you reread my response again that maybe you'd finally get it right. But not so similar to show the bush from an angle where a competent analysis can be done ... that is the difference IMO. And if you move around to a view of the backside of the bush, then you won't see the front any longer as well, so what's your point? That's like saying that a person has two arms visible when seen from the front and only one arm seen when viewed in profile. I am amazed that you cannot seem to get at least one point ever made when it comes to your claims .... Its like you purposely try not to see your errors. Bill

I will address that last part of your response - first! I think the term here to use is 'reflective angle'. And I must say that if you cannot see the vast rotation of the pyracantha bush between those two images in your Gif., then God help you with everything else. I guess the Stemmons sign coming in and out of your Gif didn't catch you eye .... and if it did you must not have recognized the significance of it. Even the foliage shaping of the bush changes drastically because they are views from totally different angles. I think if you reread my statement that you will find that I referencing the pyracantha bush and its branches as not blocking this area Vs. the photo you chose where it does block out a good percentage of the area in question. Your response is nothing short of provoking one's 5th amendment right. Bill

Chris, The original film only shows shadows on the wall beyond Mrs. Hester and it is not dark like you claimed above. I am most puzzled as to why you made that statement? This darker version shown in this thread deepens the shadows and gives the impression that you may be looking at someone, but it is just an illusion. I have since contacted Gary Mack and the Museum's lighter and sharper image shows no one beyond Mrs. Hester. Bill

Was your using a view of the bush from a different angle an accident or did you do that on purpose? The light areas show sunlight shining off the tree bark. The foliage line starts at the branch. The foliage runs at about a 45 degree angle, which causes part of the dark area to be hidden in my view. Bill

Duncan, You really need to go back and learn the case. Gordon Arnold never said that either of the cops that came up to him immediately after the shooting and as he laid on the ground, were assassins. All Gordon uttered after he saw the Badge Man image - he asked if this could be the man that approached him? The point of the Towner #3 picture is that the timing and location of two figures in dark clothing like cops would wear gives a lot of support to what Arnold had said many years before attention was ever drawn to this image. The relevancy in all of this is that the photo YOU chose to use which shows the pyracantha bush between the camera and the location you speak of is also seen in Towner #3. And yes, it is a far better image than the one you opted to use to make a BDM match. The shapes of these individuals is seen quite well against the background whereas the Willis post assassination photo you have used shows a fuzzy dark area with part of the pyracantha bush blocking it from view. This is exactly why I asked if you had done anything more than just making one of your usual erred visuals before proclaiming a confirmation on anything. Instead of trying to defend yet another claim where a thorough study was not conducted ... just try and learn something from this that may help you in the future. Bill

Duncan, The above response appears IMO to be little more than grandstanding. I know you have not liked my questioning how you were able to confirm that the possible figure in the post shooting Willis photo is the same man called the BDM. I then pointed out that there may be a clearer image of this area in yet another photo taken around the same moment. You realized the implication of Towner #3, so you then took the position that another photo would not be relevant. When I look at Towner #3 - I do not see the BDM, but rather the two cops Gordon Arnold spoke of. And so you know ... I was asking the questions so to better understand how you reached your conclusion - you were the one who was supposed to be answering them for you were already convinced - I was not! Bill

Jack, If one lightens the photo - they will find that the two mens dark outlines block out the lighter tones of the fence, thus they are standing between the wall and the fence. (see below) Bill

*********** Better late than never Jack...... Best B......... Jack, Go look in Groden's book at a normal enlargement of the Towner photo. (From memory - see pages 54 through 56) If you'll do that, then you might see that there are no missing parts of the fence, but rather a man in a light colored jacket walking up the walkway towards the shelter. The two individuals near the tree should be policemen if you still believe Gordon Arnold's version as to what happened with him immediately following the shooting. Bill

Not evasive??? We have been talking about the timing of the photo YOU used and there is a press bus in it whereas you remarked that you do not know whether it was standing still or moving. You implied that you had viewed the buses in the assassination films and now you seem to only be recalling some distant memory of seeing some buses. I am pretty sure that the bus in the post assassination Willis photo that you used is seen in motion, as well as the cars in front of it in one of the assassination films. I also believe that the same film can time stamp when that Willis photo was taken. I feel that these are things that should have been considered before claiming that you were satisfied that the possible figure you claim to see beyond the pyracantha bush was the BDM. The point is the same as previously mentioned and that is if we find that the photo you used was taken around the time of Towner #3, then the figure you were talking about could not be the BDM. What I am doing here is trying to get you into the habit of checking these assassination films and photos against one another before claiming confirmation about two blurry figures being one in the same person. Bill