Bill Miller

I would suggest anyone really interested in this subject to do a forum search so they can read all the information that has been posted on the subject. This would save valuable time for people like myself by not having to repeat everything again to those too busy to actually do research for themselves. Thanks, Bill Miller

Jack ... do you know what the height of the Queen Mary's windshield is from the ground - up??? Is it 58" as well??? I would appreciate you sharing that information with everyone.Thanks! Jack, there is a saying in the midwest that goes "IF" the dog hadn't of stopped to crap, then he would have caught the rabbit." Surely this and surely that isn't very convincing. The height of a Dallas cycles windshield on that make of bike was 58". YOU have Mary's camera lens height at 54". Now "SURELY" you can see the problem of you merely guessing at how something should look because where I come from - 58" is taller than 54". Martin is not even in view in Moorman's photo - just his windshield and handle bars. This means Martin was in the process of passing Mary when she took her photo. According to YOU - Mary is in the street just inches away from Martin's cycle and the road only has a 3% grade to it, so just how do you figure that short of a distance is effected by the grade of the street and why is Mary's camera lens height of only 54" according to YOU still higher elevated than Martin's 58" tall windshield in Mary's photograph? This should be good! Bill

Jack, I am so glad that you mentioned how close the Martin cycle came to Mary Moorman ... this brings me to a question that has been asked, but never answered by you. It is a known fact that a DPD motorcycle windshield stood 58" off the ground which is higher than you say Moorman's camera lens was. Please tell us how it is that Moorman's photo shows her camera lens to be above the top of Martin's windshield? Bill dgh: For openers, perhaps you can start with how you know that the top of that *SPECIFIC* windshield is exactly 58" off the ground? David, Thanks for asking a question that has been answered for you several times in the past. If needed ... I can probably do a forum search and find where that information has been posted more than once. However, I will briefly tell the story once again. Some years back when Jack first posted his claim about where he thinks Moorman stood on the JFK Research Forum - there was a guy who had a DPD motorcycle that was said to have been in the JFK Dallas motorcade. I believe the bike was on Ebay or going on Ebay at the time. Anyway, I called him and asked about some of the specs of the bike concerning its measurements. One of the first things that I wanted to know was the ground measurement to the top of the windshield. As I posted then and several times since then - the standing height was 58". I assume that you remembered this piece of information in the past and had used it to formulate that you had never seen any signs of alteration - especially concerning Moorman being in the street. Bill

Jack, I have lost track of how many times your missing windows has been addressed ... I am sorry to see that your memory has completely failed you. The Bronson slide shows the west side of Zapruder's clothing to be sunlit and because Moorman's photo is a B&W image - you are mistaking the shaded side of Zapruder's clothing as his entire outline. In the example below you have simply drawn a line through the sunlit side of Zapruder's pants and jacket as if it doesn't exist. This is one of your errors. The second error is that you didn't take your photo frm where Mary Moorman stood and that is why the gaps between the colonnade window and the pedestal are different between your photo and Mary's. If you want to see more on the subject, then just do a simple forum search and you will probably find several threads addressing that mistake Bill

What is it with you .... you can't debate the evidence any further and have sat quiet for days on the subject - and the only thing you can think of doing now is bitch about someone using the quote function so not to misstate your remarks. What a piece of work! To be shown anything - one must first understand what they are talking about. As I pointed out in a past response - YOU did not mention the word trajectory in your initial post, but you did mention the view showing perspective. Now if you think of anything pertaining to the evidence we have discussed - feel free to bring it up because what you are doing now is wasting forum space IMO. Bill

Craig, I think you misspoke. I think Jack gave Mary about a 54" lens height. The DPD cycles stood 58" from the ground to the tops of their windshields. It is also worth noting that the center of the street slopes towards the curb so the water will run to the gutters and be drained away. Having Mary standing in a gutter makes it even harder for Jack to account for why her camera lens is elevated over the tops of the cycles windshields. I look so forward to Jack giving a sound and rational answer to that question. In fact, I have been waiting years for that question to be answered by Jack. Bill

Isn't it funny that this is exactly the way the McBride photo shows her to be. Yes - I have several questions for you. 1) Can you guess as to how close the Martin cycle is running next to the curb as seen in Altgens #6? 2) Has it not been your position that the Muchmore film shows Hill and Moorman in the street? (I believe it has been your position) Now having asked that question ... how far out into the street from where Marie Muchmore stood do you think Hill and Moorman would need to be to have the tops of their shoes seen beyond the slope to the street (plus the drop of the curb)? Jack, I am so glad that you mentioned how close the Martin cycle came to Mary Moorman ... this brings me to a question that has been asked, but never answered by you. It is a known fact that a DPD motorcycle windshield stood 58" off the ground which is higher than you say Moorman's camera lens was. Please tell us how it is that Moorman's photo shows her camera lens to be above the top of Martin's windshield? Bill

It certainly shows that the test photo was not taken from the exact spot where Moorman stood. Bill

Bernice, please read my post very carefully. I know what Mary said and I asked you if she misspoke immediately after the assassination. It doesn't take a genius to understand that I am agreeing with your posting of Mary's original words, but it is the latter statement to Mark Oakes that is conflicting to it. I asked the question because I know that Mary has said that she wasn't in the street when she took her last photo, so which is right??? I laid out several reasons why she may have misspoke and I asked for your opinion, so just answer the question if you feel that you have an opinion. If you do not have an opinion, then that is ok, too. I am just checking to see how much thought you have put into this matter. Thanks, Bill

Bernice, These people were intelligent and also under a lot of stress and shock. But let me play along with your line of reasoning. So lets us examine Moorman's detailed explanation in the next few sentences .... "A: Evidently, just immediately, as the....Cause, he was looking, you know whenever I got the camera focused and I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over." I must say that her description was most enlightening. You don't think that Mary is still in shock and all those mental images are running through her head in no specific order? Do you really think Mary was out in the street near the car and that she somehow avoided getting run over by the motorcycles? Has a single witness to the assassination ever said that Hill and/or Moorman bolted into the street as JFK was killed? Of course you have not ever heard not even a whisper of a witness saying such a thing. Mary has been reported on record as saying that she had stepped out into the street to take one of her photos. Does not the McBride photo clearly show Mary's camera height to be about 4 to 6 inches down from the top of the cycle's windshield? Does not Mary's #5 picture show an elevated view looking slightly downward over the cycles windshields? Now about Mary's word not being changed ... could it be that they have been misinterpreted or that Mary may have unintentionally got the timing of her actions wrong. And how about Mary's answer to Mark Oakes when Mark asked her what she thought about Jack's claim about her being in the street when she took her famous photo - "I think the whole thing is silly." Is there any reason that Mary or Jean would not speak up and tell someone that the assassination films have it all wrong because she and Mary were in the street when JFK was fatally shot? Any reason that you can think of that Jean Hill who promoted there being a conspiracy in JFK's assassination would tell a listener on Len's radio show that she had gotten back out of the street before the first shot was fired if she had not of done so?? Then there is Jean Hill who has said that she and Mary had stepped out into the street as the motorcade approached - that would certainly account for the McBride photo. Then Jean said that she had gotten back out of the street before the first shot was ever fired. The very latest moment that the first shot could have been fired at was at Z202 because the very intelligent witness (Phil Willis) said that he took his photo upon hearing the first shot. Then there are all those assassination photos and films that are in sinc with one another and all show the exact same things. So my question to you is do YOU believe that Moorman misspoke immediately after the assassination and was later right when she told Mark that the whole thing is silly - or do you think her photo was altered while in her possession, all within the first 35 minutes following the shooting, and that she and Jean had motives to keep these film alterations a secret? Bill

Jack, The reason that Mary looks so short is because you (Jack) sized her to fit your LOS which was wrong as the pedestal overlay animation shows it to be. Put her on the correct LOS and she will match in size to Hill, Brehm, Oliver, and etc., as seen in all the assassination films showing the shooting. BTW, Why is it that the good photo you produced that I used to show your Gap error is of far better quality than these ridiculous fuzzy images that you are using in #38 and #39 to try and salvage your claim. Any explanation for the sudden use of deplorable images on this matter? One more thing .... I have posted numerous times to you in the past stating that Moorman's photo was filmed within 35 minutes after the shooting and while still in Mary's possession. My question to you is - Why are you still saying that Zapruder and Sitzman are add-ons to the pedestal when Moorman's photo showed them on the pedestal when her photo was aired on tV around 3:30 CST on the afternoon of the assassination??? I have also heard Jean Hill talk about Zapruder being across the street and filming the assassination and my next question is - Do you believe that Jean Hill was part of the conspiracy to make it appear that Zapruder and Sitzman were on the pedestal in light of you saying they were not? Bill

Just so make the purpose of that photo known ... Gary Mack wrote ... "The Unsolved History show was merely showing the trajectory, so all that was crucial was the JFK stand-in's location on Elm Street. We had him positioned accurately in the center lane with his head height the correct distance above the street. That test ended any speculation that the corner of the wall was a hindrance to Badge Man. It wasn't. Gary" Below is a recreation photo in color coming in over the top of Moorman's photo. The test photo was so close in every way that it is nearly impossible to find fault with it ... right down to the main tree branches and foliage. Bill

Jack, Please stop the dancing and just stick to the facts. How far are you willing to go to try and salvage a bad claim??? Jean Hill blew your claim about her being in the street when she said on Len's show "Black Op Radio, that she had gotten back out of the street BEFORE the first shot was fired. Are we to believe that Jean didn't know where she was at as the limo passed by her? Jean, while always believing there was a conspiracy, has never said that her location as seen on any assassination film is in error or has been altered - how do you explain that? Why would Moorman tell Oakes that your claim of her being in the street when taking her #5 Polaroid is just "silly"? Why wouldn't Moorman not say that the films are faked because they do not show her in the street? Could it be that it is you who got it wrong??? And why not address the observation that Mary's camera height as reported by YOU is no less than 4" shorter than the tops of the cycles windshields and yet her camera is looking downward at an angle above them. Did someone set a chair in the street for Mary to stand on? Did Mary hold the camera over her head so to get that elevated view? Come on, Jack ... if you want to be serious, then address those observations. Also, feel free to have Fetzer address them as well. Then there is that gap problem between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window. The shift that takes place between your photo and Moorman's tells me that your camera was too low and too far east and that is why the pedestal rises and shifts to the left between those two pictures. So by all means, Jack - address these points because they have been raised for years now and you just ignore them, but the rest of the world is not going to ignore them. They need to be addressed if you are as serious about these claims as you have let on to be. Bill

I am not sure why it was written that maybe Mary was wrong in her recollection??? Mary at some point, as far as I recall, had remembered taking one of her photos from in the street and that's all. I imagine that it was Jack who took that ball and ran with it from there. The obvious photo that tells us which photo she took from within the street was that of Officer McBride. In that photo she is looking at the people across the street through McBride's windshield. The same thing happened with Jean Hill's statement where she said she had stepped into the street. Jack posted an edited clip showing Jean saying 'I stepped into the street', but what Jean was referring to was her stepping into the street when the limo rounded the corner. On Black Op Radio, Jean was asked about her stepping into the street and Jean cleared up the matter by telling the listeners that she had gotten back out of the street BEFORE the first shot was heard. As far as Jack's partners in the plaza goes ... I think Mantik and Fetzer have since realized their error, while Jack continues to cling to the 'everyone is wrong - all the films and photos must be altered when they do not support my alteration claims' mentality. Bill

Jack, The things Craig is talking about are correct whether he has been to Dealey Plaza or not. Things that show you in error that does not take someone going to the plaza to see it .... 1) Moorman tells Mark Oakes that your claiming she was in the street for that picture is silly 2) Jean Hill says she was out of the street BEFORE the first shot was fired 3) The curb drops more than 8" and the slope of the hill increases the drop to well over a foot and a half. Craig was right for mentioning this because the shoes of Moorman and Hill are seen in the Muchmore film, thus they cannot be in the street 4) Craig is also right that Moorman's camera is elevated higher than the tops of the cycles windshields, which could not be the case had Moorman of been standing in the street unless Mary had held the camera well over her head to take her photo 5) Your alleged position for Moorman in the street is seen as being in error when the gap between the window of the colonnade and the corner of the pedestal vary between your pic and Mary's. (see below) Your attempt to divert attention away from your error by stating that Craig attacked you is as erroneous as your 'Mooorman in the street' claim. What Craig, Thompson, myself, and others attacked was your poorly researched claims - not you personally. Bill Miller

Alan, How many times has this needed to be said to you ... Golz and Godwin just had Arnold photographed in the plaza for the article. Both laughed at the idea that their photo was supposed to be a recreation. Stating the remarks you have made incorrectly once again will not change that fact. Bill "This posting contains so much MISINFORMATION about Gordon Arnold, Gary Mack, Earl Golz, Jim Marrs and the facts that it would take several hours to debunk it point by point. I don't have the time for such a futile exercise. Things said about the above people are untrue; I was there, I know these people; the above writers do not. Jack" And to Jack - Alan has willfully and intentionally misstated information in an attempt to discredit Arnold. The photo Godwin took of Arnold was never meant to be a re-enactment photo ... yet Alan gets some sort of kick out of misrepresenting it that way. Bill

To answer the question - IMO, not without being exactly where Moorman was - the same camera tilt - etc. All lines run off a "vanishing point" as has been discussed in another thread. The angle to the car in each photo is causing us to view it from different perspectives, thus they will be different. Think of it this way .... we have discussed the rotation of the limo as it passes by in front of Zapruder. The constant changing of perspective makes the limo appear to be rotating counter clockwise. Even if one had two exact limos - the view Moorman had compared against the test photo will always have a different look to it because the two photographers and the car was not in the same place for each image to match. Had the camera of taken the photo in each so to be precise, then the angle back to each photographer would have been so close as to line up pretty well. However, this did not occur. Bill

Ed, Why would you pick a blurry frame to try and tell exactly where people were within the limo when you could choose another frame that is clearer? BTW, Jackie's head is between the camera and Connally's left shoulder in these frames. Bill

The person that Jackie looks to be head butting on the 2D image is Connally who in reality is sitting to the right and in front of Jackie. It is the angle at which they are being seen that makes them look so close. For a good idea as to how the angle at which things are seen effects how the spacing between objects appears - compare the same people in the Willis or Betzner photo to those in the Bronson slide. Bill

The two photos may look the same, but there are noticeable differences. The camera heights were not the same for openers. I would also like to say that the more distant objects may look to line up because they are far away and harder to detect any slight differences, but they are there and can be checked none-the-less. For instance, I can take two photos taken at different angles of around 15 degrees and still find certain reference points in both photos that will appear to be the same distance apart. But at the same time the angle change will also show other reference points to be way off, thus the photo was not accurate enough to be an exact replication. Place your mouse arrow on the Badge Man tree or the southwest outside shelter wall in the animation and watch them move back and forth off your mouse arrow. Bill

I think that was a thread where you blew off your big mouth and said something inappropriate to her. Now what about the images that you used ... drum scan or not? Those were your post - were they not! Bill

Yes, but Gary's opinion is based on his observations from looking at the best prints and not the fuzzy ones that you embrace. Here is a link to one of your "floating torso' threads off Lancer. Is that not the drum scan you used in your very first post and throughout the entire thread? http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...=&mode=full Bill

What do you look for - blurrier prints? If one goes back to post 164 - they will see a reference you made to an image, but its not there. You referenced 2002. I bet I can find one somewhere. I will get back to this once I have done a little research.

Gary had seen the prints Jack used ... what did he say about the 'wash out' claim of yours or did you not care to ask him that question? Groden isn't a waste of time to those he doesn't believe is trying to waste it. Then there is Josiah - did you contact him? The fact is and always will be - if there is no image on the best prints - it won't be found on fuzzy copies of the same. Bill

Ok - so you want to play dumb and dance some more ... no problem. Did not EBC use your Moorman image and do some enlargements. "Apologies for impinging on Duncan's research. I thought I could try and get a closer look a the shooter in Moorman's photo. Apologies again to Duncan. EBC" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=10251&st=0 This is what Jack had to say, "EBC: as someone who studied the Moorman photo for many years from sharp excellent copies, I hate to burst your bubble. Those are extremely terrible representations. Your badgeman area is an unrecognizable blur. Sorry to be so critical. Jack" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=10390&st=0 "Duncan, I have lost track of how many times I have posted information showing that the drum scan is inferior compared to the original scans of Moorman's photo before fading took place. Jack White for instance got his Badge Man image from an early print - find Badge Man on the drum scan if you even can and tells us how the two compare ... it's a bloody joke! The same can be said about Groden's 'Hat Man' in his book, as well as in Josiah's book "Six seconds in Dallas". Find that same location on the drum scan and compare the two for there is no comparison ... the drum scan is most inferior. Now having said that ... one must be a real dunce to still try and pass off the drum scan as being more reliable than the copies that were made when Moorman's photo was still clear and sharp. If I substitute a few words in your response, then I am basically saying something like 'its more preferable to use a fuzzy inferior image to look for details over a sharper cleaner image'. One would think that you would not want to continue such nonsense because it makes you appear lacking in common sense to continue on with such foolishness, but each person has to set his or her own standards for appearing credible ... that is your right." http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=10251&st=0 Duncan writes: "Can you tell me WHO tries to pass off the drum scan as being more reliable than the copies that were made when Moorman's photo was still clear and sharp? It certainly wasn't me. I only stated that I use it for comparisons. Some comparisons verify, some don't." http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=10251&st=0 reply #12 (see Jack's Badge Man overlay on your 'clear Moorman image') - reply #226 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0251&st=225 (see Jack White's Badge Man from one of his prints to compare to Duncan's so-called 'Clear full Moorman') - reply #234 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0251&st=225 And to wrap this up - while I do not recall where I posted this animation - it has been seen before and it shows the difference in sharpness in the good photographic copy of Moorman's print as seen in both Thompson's and Groden's books Vs. the drum scan that you (Duncan) have used. So it appears that the comparisons were done for you. (see below) Actually, the images you speak of came from Groden and/or Thompson. Once again you have recklessly said something that was in error. So it seems that your position is like the the saying about not being able to get the horse to drink. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink it." In other words - despite you being told about there being better images that disprove your claim ... they don't really count if you can avoid doing what it takes to actually see them so to know better. In one post you said that you'd pay for what ever images I sent you .... probably because I had already said that I only had partial crops of those images. So why not make that offer to the people who do have them or would that be something you'd rather not do??? Bill