Bill Miller

There are buses seen in several films taken prior and after the shooting .... can you tell us which film you saw 'the bus' in when you determined it had zero value to the topic? Just trying to make sure we are on the same page. I mean, its almost as if you are avoiding being more specific with your answers. I'm trying to learn something here, so please try and not be so general in your responses. The Skaggs image you posted was taken a fraction of a second before Bond #7 was exposed ... the closer time period we were discussing was Towner #3, and the post shooting Willis photo and how fast the bus was moving, if at all. Thanks, Bill

Miles, Do any of the assassination photos or films taken within the first minute following the shooting show Foster missing from the underpass? Bill Miller

Great! I assume that you have recently done this - seeing how your initial response implied that you had used your eyes when asked what all had you done to confirm your conclusion. Now having looked at the assassination films - what did you determine, if anything? Bill

Great point about the whether the bus was moving or not and if so, then how fast. So at least we've gone from the timing of the photos that wasn't important to consider before to now maybe the timing of the photos just might tell us something - not to mention the films because the Willis photo doesn't show the writing, but it does show part of the bus. By the way, have you looked to see if the buses can be seen in motion in any of the assassination films? The BDM is the same person in both the Willis and Betzner photos which were taken less than one second apart. The enhancement animation in this thread started with the sharper of the two BDM as seen in the Betzner photo. In fact, there are threads where it can be found that you said that you brought out the true shape of the BDM ... the term you used was "enhancement". In the above quote, I had mentioned not BDM2, but rather just "BDM". Bill

Hoffman's book was no secret and yet a couple of his critics on this forum had not bothered reading it before deciding what was true and what was not. Bill

It can be time stamped in accordance with other films and photos showing the traffic flow on the street. After all, is that not what we did with Dillard's 3rd photo against an assassination film - two views from two different angles. If you are talking about the prints used to find Badge Man, then they were sharp. In fact, before Moorman's photo had started to fade over time - it was said to be sharp. And if you had read "Six seconds in Dallas" you would know that what ever you believe to be seen at the Hat Man location was not part of the tree foliage or obstacles sitting in the RR yard. I thought you said that it had confirmed in your mind that they were one in the same person. This is why I asked you about what all you did to "confirm" your confirmation so-to-speak. Which is it ... "Nothing " " " " is reliable" or "some things are" reliable when talking about the photographic record??? Then you say that your subject matter is unreiliable, yet you use terms like "confirmed" ... I find your remarks somewhat confusing. It's like saying that you suspect no one, but at the same time you suspect everyone. Hoffman and the Turner documentary beat me to it. I was talking about YOUR discoveries. I think you will be hard pressed to find where I have said what you just attributed to me, but at the same time when it comes to the things you post - you were not to far off the mark as to what I thought about them. Bill

About one minute??? Is that the press bus passing under the underpass that is seen in the photo you had originally used? If so, then does it take a minute for a bus to drive a few hundred feet when it took the limo only a few seconds. This is why the timing of the photos becomes important. The overhanging foliage that blocks out part of the figure on the left near the tree in Towner 3 may have caused an effect on how you thought he was the BDM from the Betzner photo when seen from the angle the other photo showed. Bill

I agree in part, Tim. In this instance - Ken has given information that is known to him to be factual and yet Duke says he has not the time to look for those facts. I had a similar situation over the evidence collected by the Commission but chose a different approach - I went and bought two sets of the 26 Volumes and spent the next five years reading over each volume. I guess it all depends on what someone's priorities are concerning how bad they want to know whats factual and what is not. Bill

10 hours later??? What if a photo was taken less than 10 to 30 seconds later and from a different angle and it showed instead an elephant, or an elderly woman, or a nun at the location that we are discussing - now do you get my point! While seen as dark shapes in a poor image - they certainly would not account for the BDM. I have never seen so much time wasted by an individual trying to defend what I consider poor research practices before drawing a conclusion. All we have is two objects seen in deep shadow at two different points along the walkway, with one of them being partially hidden by the pyracantha bush. But if you say that is good enough for you, then so be it. But I still want to know why if you are really sincere in what you say, then why have you not gone to any authorities or news media personnel about your claims of hidden shooters and crouching cops behind the concrete wall??? I am guessing that it is because you know that what you have done is not reliable and would be a waste of anyone's time having it shown to them. How far off am I? Other excuses for not sharing such earth shattering news might be that you have a headache now and will do it later, you don't know how to use a phone so to call anyone, that you must only share this news with the Education Forum and no one else, or that you don't want the JFK murder conspiracy solved just yet. GET MY POINT! Bill

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.” Rene Dahinden, August 1999.

"The time difference is not an issue. It's the figures which are the issue, and my opinion is that they are the same figure. Tell me what the time difference has to do with anything? Duncan" The above answer you gave suggests to me that you did not bother to time stamp any of the assassination images. In fact, when I asked you to tell me how you reached your confirmation, you replied only that you used your eyes. No mention of any further effort on your part to validate your conclusion was offered. Furthermore, the foliage of the pyracantha bush blocks out a good portion of what ever it is that you are seeing. All you have is a dark image seen behind the pyracantha bush. You have misread the white 45 degree angled tree branch as being the same light spot as is noted in the BDM figure in Betzner's photograph. Having said this, I will ask again why it is if you truly believe in the things you post concerning your alleged enhancements, then why have you not contacted the news media or any other party so to get your earth shattering discoveries out to the world? I suspect that in the answer lies the reason why you cannot seem to get Groden or Thompson to answer your emails. Bill

Duncan, you are appearing to be more biased than you are in knowing the facts. One can read my questions and your answers to tell when it was you needed to stop being serious and start getting pinned down with your own words. As soon as I mention there maybe being another photo taken from a different angle that would show your figure not to be there or the same person - you then started demanding I find the image and post it. The point I was making that you seem to like to say you are convinced about something concerning the photographic record without you actually doing a thorough job of checking the accuracy of your conclusions. I just had found this odd to me and was trying to understand your research methods a little better. Once again you got off point and started giving silly responses. I think this action was intentional and is why we seldom agree. Thanks, Bill

Ken, Oh how can that be!!! Miles has gone on and on how Holland said that he immediately ran behind the fence. That Holland would have been sprinting into the RR yard around the time of the said tossing of something at the steam pipe. Could it be that Dillard 3 has been altered just so to make Miles look to be in error??? Maybe a "Dillard 3 altered" thread is forthcoming .... (sigh~) Maybe someone can take Dillard's 3 photograph and degrade it to the extent that it shows Holland to be missing from the photo, thus Holland has already left for the RR yard immediately after the shooting. Then and only then will we all be closer to the truth. (grin~) Bill

You have to be joking - right? Let's consider this scenario ... A guy claims that a known figure called the BDM is obviously in one photo, but the other photo taken at a later time shows what he thinks could be the same guy, but its not a given. So then one finds a photo taken at the same time from another angle which shows the same location, but much clearer. But the other photo shows that it really wasn't a person there at all. What is one to do? It seems that saying you do not need to check with any potentially more reliable photos is basically saying that you just want to make the claim - not verify its accuracy to the best of your ability. And I am still asking you who have you contacted with this ground breaking enhancement stuff of yours so to get it out to the world what you've discovered? Bill

For one thing - you are using a very poor blurry image of the BDM. The BDM doesn't have a tree branch passing over his person in one photo, but he does in the other. You seemed to have seen the tree branch in one photo and applied to the image in the other photo in order to think they were a match. (see below) Have you checked all the other photos in "Pictures of the Pain" to see if there was a better view of that area around the same period in time? Bill

You keep telling yourself, this, Duncan and I will continue to tell people to look at your animation in post #23 and they can decide for themselves if you are being serious or not. Again, you keep telling yourself, this, Duncan and I will continue to tell people to look at your animation in post #23 and they can decide for themselves if you are being serious or not. I believe you said the ridiculous shape you drew in next to him and just over the wall was a shooter was supposed to be someone dressed like the Badga Man and that they were crouched behind the wall. Here is the link .... http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...=&mode=full In scrolling your post on the link - people will discover some more drawn in figures. The one you did of an alleged person sneaking up behind Zapruder and Sitzman at the pedestal was a real hoot! Your statement is not accurate as usual. Back when you all were looking for anything to show where "THE OTHER FILM" was taken from is when I pointed out that a human shape could be made out of the foliage. This had nothing to do with a 'shooter'. And it was good that after years you had finally denounced your 'tripod man' ... it took me about three seconds at looking at what you had done for me to denounce it. Now what about your current enhancements - can we expect to see them on the world news anytime soon? Bill

Duncan, Pretend not to get it all you want, but it doesn't change anything. We know you didn't change my shape, but you did change the shape of the BDM, thus you did not give both alleged enhancements the same attention. One image you stopped short of altering my shape - the BDM image you went to such an extreme that you did alter his shape. Saying you did not do this while posting the animation showing the shape change taking place doesn't help your position IMO. And if you really felt like you were correct, then who have you contacted so to get your ground breaking enhancement out to the world so to show this new shooter, thus proving a conspiracy in JFK's murder once and for all? In fact, add the floating cop torso to the mix, along with the guy you created one time that was said to be standing atop of the colonnade, and not to forget the tripod man and you have busted the JFK assassination wide open! So what are you waiting for? Bill

Jack, the circle you have called sunlight on the colonnade in Altgens 8 is actually the sunlight shining off of Sitzman's left shoulder. You simply are misinterpreting these images IMO. Bill

Duncan, you should have been a PR man for one of our President's. I will ask once again ... what does lightening my photo only to a point that it DOES NOT change the shape of the objects contained within it have to do with the degrading the Betzner photo's BDM to the point of totally altering it??? Please stay on point if you can. Go back to post #23 and watch the transformation a few more times if need be because it is nowhere close to what you did to my knoll photo by merely lightening the image slightly. Bill

I don't get it .... The photographic record shows that no one left the underpass for the first minute (at least) and has been reported throughout this thread. Is it your opinion that all the films and photos showing this has been altered? If you do not feel the film and photos were altered to show the men still on the underpass, then why do you say that these underpass witnesses were on their way to the fence by the time the shots were fired??? I mean it is nice to just say it, but the photographic record shows what you say about this time line to not be accurate. Bill

The report is in the 26 Volumes, which means that it does exist. Not having a set of the 26 volumes does not constitute the report not existing. And as I recall - the only difference I am seeing is that Weitzman asked the guy where did he see this "toss" take place and the guy had told him that it was over near the steam pipe. Bill Miller

Well, post #23 shows an average print of the Black Dog Man before your alleged enhancement and after. It doesn't even take a measurement to see how the shape disappears as it was eaten away. You say that you have brought out the finer details, then so be it. Does this mean that this technique that we can call "The Duncan enhancement technique" will be showing up in a scientific journal any time soon? After all, not only have you shown that there was another person seen over the wall next to the BDM, but you managed to bring about new images never before seen in over four decades. This is BIG STUFF!!! Or will you just be limiting your amazing technique just to the forums??? The only thing you have done in the above response IMO was show that you not only misspelled the word "recognizable", but you misspelled it differently in the two places you used it in a matter of just a few sentences. Taking a photo and lightening it slightly is not what you did in post #23. The image of me on the walkway above the knoll did not change shape or become half eaten away as did the BDM figure in your so-called enhancement, thus you did not degrade the image to the point that I have been saying that you did in post #23. If you had only lightened the BDM, then his original shape WOULD NOT have changed. Bill

Robin...I have asked Bernice to post my latest study which I think will change your mind about the authenticity of Altgens 8. After about an hour of looking at light and shadow, I compared the same area in Wiegman and Altgens...and ONE AREA POPPED OUT IN SUNLIGHT THAT IS SHADOWED IN WIEGMAN. I think this is indisputable. Bernice.... Jack In Altgens 8 - we are looking into Charles Hester's face (3A is to their left as we are facing them) At the same moment in time, Wiegman is looking at the Hester's from a side view whereas the space between columns marked 3A is directly behind the Hesters. Get your 'lazy suzans' out and do a background shifting test. (grin~) Bill

In an earlier post you (Miles) said that Hoffman was merely telling what he believed he had seen. Someone obviously threw something near the steam pipe, thus you will have a hard time trying to find fault with Hoffman's observations. I think everyone should read the report before drawing conclusions. And when you are thinking about Hoffman's veracity - think about how silly he would have looked had the men in the RR yard by the fence were really Secret Service Agents, as at least one impostor had done. Ed would not have said he saw a gun IMO unless he truly believed it to be so. BTW, Miller may have thought someone threw firecrackers so to account for the sounds of possible gunshots, but was not the steam pipe toss something that came AFTER the shooting .... hmmmmnn! Bill Miller

Thanks Kathy, but that was not it. It is a report where Weitzman tells of a RR worker who was on the underpass had reported to him that he saw through the bushes that something was tossed near the steam pipe. Weitzman said the man told him that it was over near where the steam pipe is in the RR yard. Bill