Bill Miller

Duncan, in another thread you got after Craig for not being able to read IYO, yet you seem to have the same problem that you accused him of having. Each time you have asked me for a full Moorman photo from where the crops came from - I have directed you to the sources that would have it and I have said repeatedly that I do not have the full Moorman image from the copy negative that Groden or Thompson had. Your replies were that Groden doesn't answer you and that you do not know how to contact Josiah Thompson. Then someone pointed out to you that Josiah is a member of this forum and that you can PM him what ever request that you have. I have a feeling that if you put half of much time in asking the right people for what you want as you do wasting forum space with repetitive post that have been answered time and time again, then you'd probably get a lot further. Bill

How much more factual can one get than 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 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15 post #19 David Healy: I go with the Z-film is altered ...

I am reminded once again that another person did see something tossed near the steam pipe and reported it to Seymour Weitzman. Why no one else saw it - who knows? Bill

I have met Mark Lane and that is not at all what he thought. He meant they were not behind the fence from where he sat, but rather on the RR side. Alan, didn't Bowers describe one man as heavy set and the other in a plaid coat - which two men on the steps fits that description? Also, any pictures I have seen taken from inside the tower do not show the step area where Hudson stood - it's too far over the fence and down the hill. Look at Moorman's photo looking back from the street - do you see the tower anywhere? Bill

David, more propaganda I see? Those few of you that you speak of - are they the same few who think the lawn sprinklers in the plaza are listening devices?? Or would they be he same few who say Altgens 6 is genuine while also saying Moorman and Hill are in the street??? Or would that be the same few who have said that they believe the Zfilm is altered and elsewhere have said that they have seen no proof of alteration???? Yes, I want a letter of recommendation from you alright. Bill Miller

Jack, With all due respect ... my last post involved YOUR words, so in a sense it was YOU who got the last word. I am sorry that your past remarks come back to haunt you. Bill

So Jack - YOU want to dance some more - great - let's dance! On July fourth I posted the following link. Was that not you who said the gang created a fake gap???????? Please read the bold type below. Bill http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=1133&st=45 ORDINARILY I DO NOT READ NOR RESPOND TO MR. PETERS/MILLER'S RAVINGS, BUT I NOTICED HIS POSTING OF THE LONG-AGO DISCREDITED "GAP" IN THE MOORMAN PIC, AND I MUST PROVIDE AN ANTIDOTE. It was several years ago that the GANG created a FAKE GAP using their famous DRUM SCAN. This "gap" does not exist on good copies of Moorman. Just setting the record straight for those who might fall for this discredited disinformation. Jack White

I said it appears to show no gap, do you disagree with that? appears being the crucial word..I think it's a worthwhile contribution to this thread and possibly one worth further study. Duncan Yes Duncan ... run a study on poor images Vs. clearer images and please report your findings. If the Newspaper scan you posted was any poorer - there would not even be a pedestal IMO. And does it matter what someone may or may not have done to a photo for a newspaper ... isn't the first view of Moorman's photograph while it was still in her possession the best evidence. And did Jack not say that the drum scan was the only print that showed the gap and that was because 'the gang' faked it. Bill

Jack, Duncan's poor newspaper print left a little to be desired. Jack, you have said that 'the gang' faked the gap and I notice that Groden has several different Moorman prints in his book that also show the same wide gap. Now these prints were in Groden's possession well before the drum scan was ever done, so is it your position that 'the gang' got into Groden's collection of prints and faked their gaps, as well? And about the window of time for faking Moorman's photo .... what part of the news people filming Moorman's photograph not 35 minutes following the shooting did you not understand? Within 2.5 hours from that moment the photo will appear on NBC. YOU will not have come up with the silly idea that Moorman was in the street for more than two decades, so why would anyone want to alter the gap of Moorman's instant picture immediately following the shooting? Keep in mind that the faking of the gap according to YOU was not until Thompson did the drum scan. Bill

Jack, It is YOU and YOU only who doesn't understand the importance of that gap. YOUR gap is closed and Mary's is wide open. If one goes to the plaza and stands just a few feet left or right of Mary's true position - the width of the gap changes. YOUR gap is so far off that a blind man who cannot see could still sense your error. And the reason that YOU wish to ignore the gap is because it destroys your being in the street claim for when you took a photo from where you thought Moorman stood - your gap was all but closed. You then said that it was only the 'DRUM SCAN' that showed a gap and I replied that all the Moorman prints show the gap. When invited to show a Moorman print hat shows no gap - your reply then becomes one that says the gap is irrelevant. I warned you to think this stuff through carefully before answering because what you are making up in one area to save a bad claim will destroy a good claim of yours elsewhere. Bill

Relax, Jack ... for I am only the messenger. You and Gary can hash out the story when you guys meet again. What I do not need Gary to tell me is that you took measurements of the area and the position of the people you believed to be seen in Mary's photograph. That photo shows a gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window that YOUR test photo does not show. For your study to come from a Moorman print, then you must also have the correct location and LOS or else all your data would pertain to another location that didn't involve Mary, thus your work will be faulty. Bill

Jack, That is hardly a direct answer to my questions, but I will work with what little you gave me. Now those prints that you did your Badge Man study work from - do any of them show the absence of the gap like your recreation photo shows? No need to answer that question really because I can tell you that they DO NOT. The only thing you need to address is if you sitting on the ground was a correct height for Moorman's camera, then why is the gap in all the Moorman prints not as you show it in your test photo? Bill

It appears that Jack has overlooked an import post in need of an important answer before going on about Zippo lighters, so here it is again. Please answer the question Jack! The post read in part ...... "Now that I have your attention and while I am waiting for Gary Mack to get into the office - I am willing to bet that YOUR Badge Man study was done by having Mary Moorman in the grass just as all the assassination images show her to be. Are you sure that you want to continue this nonsense about her being in the street, which would null and void your Badge Man study because you had picked the wrong place to work from??? Think about this before answering. Bill PS; Having just reached Gary Mack at his office and posing the same question I put to Jack - Gary replied that he and Jack did all their work on Badge Man by the LOS of having Mary Moorman in the grass as seen in all the assassination films and images. Gary would agree, while not buying into Jack's claim, that if Mary was in the street, then the Badge Man study that he and Jack did is unreliable based on they didn't have Moorman where Jack claimed her to be in latter years."

deleted duplicate post

David,Please tell this forum what affidavits you collected, read, or have in your possession that caused you to tell this forum that you have seen no proof of alteration? You seem to be playing the trolling game again, so let us see what standard of research do you uphold for yourself. And FWIW, I had copies of the paperwork concerning the cycle being offered for sale and included was a certificate of authenticity. It is true that I didn't insult the guy by insisting on him signing an affidavit saying that what he presented me was the real deal, but I did call around to some well established people in the field and came away with the impression that the cycle was legit. Feel free to make any necessary contacts needed and let me know if you come up with anything different than what I have posted in the past. 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? David, one thing that I can say about you is that the quality of your responses never change. Bill

Jack, I have posted that very information more times than I care to count and each time you do not address it. The quickest way to see that photo is to go to a show that I believe was called "JFK assassination: As It Happened". NBC aired Mary's photo in full and the time was around 3:30PM Dallas time on the afternoon of the assassination. Now that I have your attention and while I am waiting for Gary Mack to get into the office - I am willing to bet that YOUR Badge Man study was done by having Mary Moorman in the grass just as all the assassination images show her to be. Are you sure that you want to continue this nonsense about her being in the street, which would null and void your Badge Man study because you had picked the wrong place to work from??? Think good about this before answering. Bill PS; Having just reached Gary Mack at his office and posing the same question I put to Jack - Gary replied that he and Jack did all their work on Badge Man by the LOS of having Mary Moorman in the grass as seen in all the assassination films and images. Gary would agree, while not buying into Jack's claim, that if Mary was in the street, then the Badge Man study that he and Jack did is unreliable based on they didn't have Moorman where Jack claimed her to be in latter years.

Well said! You have just described the audience that TGZFH was directed at. Bill

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

Jack, here is an easy question to answer if you can. Please tell this forum how anyone inserted Sitzman and Zapruder onto the pedestal in Mary's instant picture within the first 35 minutes of the assassination and while still in Moorman's possession??? That photo was filmed by a local station and was aired on TV by 3:30PM CST. If you cannot answer that simple question, then you have no alteration claim pertaining to Moorman's photo. Bill Miller

The person selling the bike came to me ... I believe through another researcher. That information was posted in detail on more than one occasion and on more than one forum. If I am not mistaken ... that bike was also used in the movie "JFK". I believe the man's name who was considered the guru of Harley Davidson Motorcycles was named Lonnie Isam. Do a forum search and refresh your memory. In fact, JFK Research probably had the most details that were posted - good luck in finding the information there. I am surprised at you, David. I would have thought that you checked on all this stuff when it was posted in the past and that was what led you to say on this forum that YOU had never seen anything that proved alteration. But seeing how you like proof ... here is the proof that I cited what you said correctly ............. 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

John, sorry if the tone of my responses seems short, but these points have been raised for years to these guys who bought into Jack's claims and none of them ever address these facts ... facts BTW that they did not have at the time they made their claims. Maybe it will be time once again to cite a remark Groden had made pertaining to Jack's alteration claims and how much damage they have caused the research community. People of Jack's status have a higher responsibility to be accurate in what they say and write about. Claiming Altgens #6 to be genuine only to flip-flop once it is brought to light that it disproves a Jack White claim doesn't cut it. Here is another point ... when Jack did his Badge Man study - did he and Mack place Mary's location in the street or in the grass? I'm betting that it was in the grass. The point is that if Jack would simply have answered the questions being put to him to start with - this topic would have been dead a long time ago. By his not addressing the problems with his claims, then he keeps them alive. The question then must be asked - When does Jack's claims become more important than getting to the truth about JFK's murder? (if that is even possible) Bill

Jim - you must be joking. You had told me on the phone that you were aware of some of Jack's mistakes. In fact, you posted on Lancer that you were not responsible for the claims made in your book when you came under attack for putting such poorly researched material in that book. Any time you wish to join in and offer some actual evidence to why Moorman was in the street, then feel free to do so. So far I have not read how a 54" camera lens height got elevated above a 58" high motorcycle windshield as seen in Moorman's photo, especially when Jack has placed Moorman in the gutter near the curb which is the lowest part of the street? I also have not herard you tell us how if Moorman and Hill were in that gutter, then why are the tops of their shoes seen in Muchmore's film?? I also have not heard you say how it is that Moorman's and Hill's shadows in Altgens #6 photograph are seen coming from the grass when Jack believes them to already be in the street??? And then there is that darned "GAP" problem between the colonnade window and the corner of the pedestal. Jack has taken the position that the gap was fabricated by 'the gang' and can only be found on the drum scan that Thompson had done. That bluff by Jack was quickly called when I asked him to ciite a source or post an image of any other Moorman print that didn't show the gap - can you believe that to date Jack has never done that - what a shocker!!! So with you being so loyal to Jack's 'Moorman in the street' claim, can you cite a Moorman photo source that doesn't show the gap that is seen in all the Moorman photo prints I have seen. I have checked with Thompson, Mack, Groden, Trask's books and nowhere can I find a print that shows the gap closed as Jack's study photo does. In fact, Moorman's photo (while still in her possession) was filmed for TV not 35 minutes after the assassination. That photo was shown on TV within hours of the assassination and the gap is there ... and so are Zapruder and Sitzman who in your book are claimed to have been inserted onto the pedestal at a later time as part of the conspiracy. Yes, fine study you guys did in the plaza, thus you won't mind answering some of these all important questions. Thanks! Bill

Tom, I appreciate the movie "JFK" as well as anyone, but it is still a screenplay with many errors in it. Unless one learns the evidence first, then how will they know what is accurate and what is not when they do watch a movie like "JFK"? I agree with much of the rest that you said. Bill

I am wondering if this forum should have a chat line where you guys can talk about the wife and kids so to leave more room on the JFK forum for actual JFK related data. Just a thought ~ Bill Miller

I do not know how the world would be, but I believe the forum would be better off if people would conduct their own research before trying to debate a topic one way or the other. But getting back to the manner in which I used the phrase - it was over research that has already been written where someone like David can go read it or refresh their memory with it rather than have needless lengthy responses be given all over again. I must say that I am troubled as to how someone like yourself will consider watching a movie as research. Anyway, is there something about the Moorman in the street claim that you would like to address? Bill Miller