Bill Miller

I say let the response #342 stand in testimony as to the lack of seriousness you have involving the purpose of this forum and JFK's murder. This is just why some people like Posner and Bugliosi believe that CT's are kooks. And I doubt that Gary Mack appreciates your using his name to help promote such idiocy. Bill Miller

Duncan, you pretty much just explained why people cannot take you seriously. Even Jack has told you that the image you posted was not good. It has been shown by way of comparisons that the Hat Man's fedora is little more than a fuzzy blur in your so-called "clear full Moorman". Your "clear full Moorman" doesn't have the clarity of the print that Jack used to show Arnold and Badge Man and yet you tell this forum (as if they are too stupid to know better) that you have posted a clear full Moorman print. You have presented propaganda - not facts. I can only suggest that you fire your lead defense respresentive. And believe me ... if the people who had the best prints would give me one, then I would certainly post it. I have partial crops from those images, but the not the whole image and have said so in the past. So the fact is that it matters little if I possess the best prints, but rather that they do exist and you have not posted where you have even attempted to see them other than asking me to produce them. Maybe this simple investigative rule can be of some help to you - Those who do not have the data that you seek can tell you about it and where to look for it, but cannot give it to you - while those who do possess it, can. And we both know that if you could prove me in error - you'd do so even if it meant seeking out those types of people who I have suggested. The fact that you won't do it tells me that you don't feel as confident about your position as you let on. Bill

There have been some simple mistakes made, but not by Holland. Bowers clearly spoke of two men in the RR yard. One of the men if I am not mistaken was met by Officer Smith. The other man who was said to be up by the fence can be seen in part in Moorman's photo and in the Willis photo. Bowers told Lane that where the man near the fence was located that there was a flash of light or some unusual occurrence that took place there. Two men about 15 feet apart. The choices for possible shooters is very limited. It is also worth noting that the smoke from a rifle shot is propelled down the barrel and will hold its shape until it drifts out into the air before being blown apart. It was the small tress and fence that held that smoke together which allows it to be seen in the Dave Wiegman film. That smoke is east of the Hudson tree in Wiegman's film for it blocks part of that tree from view. Even worse would be if one actually went to the 6th Floor Museum, contacted Mack, contacted Thompson, contacted Groden, or spoke to anyone else who had in their possession and/or have seen better prints only to discover that they have wasted an enormous amount of time posting about seeing a 'wash out' that never existed in the first place. Then to make matters worse - they by accident ran into someone skilled in photography and/or art and they found that their alleged floating torso outline was in fact too large to be human because of the distance it was observed from the camera. Can one imagine the embarrassment for not only ignoring these points when they were first made known, but for refusing to actually follow-up in a responsible way so not to have looked ridiculous to the rest of the research community. I don't know if this would make one angry, but I think it may have frustrated the rest of the researchers to the point of being angry. Bill Miller

Right ... Holland could've recalled the limo at any place within that red box and still have been accurate. Bill

When Sam moves to the picket fence he looks for casings in the trampled muddy area. Here, he assumes that this is where the sniper was & that this is where the smoke emanated. To Sam this seemed logical as he experienced these impressions on the 22nd. However, Sam didn't stop to analyze in great detail, as, of course he had no time to do so. Wasn't it the location of the shot sounding off and the smoke that was seen that got Holland to go to that spot where cthey looked for casings and not the other way around? While I can imagine someone stating what you did - I cannot see them being serious about it because there were other men on the underpass who also saw and heard the same thing that Holland witnessed. Bill

And to think you said I sound like a politician. The "best" Moorman you are using is so bad that the Hat Man is a faint fuzzy blob - and Arnold and Badge Man are almost non-existent. So yes, I believe I have posted previously that one could think the image is washed out and it very well may be, but I said that this was the reason that one should validate their conlusion by talking to those who have seen the best prints or handled the original because in those better images it is the Dallas sky seen through the tree openings. I find your thoughts amazing. I can see the sky in the 'Youtube.com version and you say your best copy shows the same areas to be washed out. So it seems that the worst and best prints you have show the area between the fence and the foliage to be washed out and the one with medium clarity shows the sky. Interesting. Bill

Chris, I thought about this in the past and the only way I can see Holland being correct in that the car was near the lamppost - would be from the view from on top of the underpass from where Sam was during the shooting. That pushes the car back up Elm Vs. the perpendicular view from what they had at the fence. Bill

No, being a film has little to do with it. If Moorman of had a zoom on her camera and used it for that area, then the image would be better. And don't let the point get brushed under the rug whereas the original or best film prints (movie or still) offer the best views over multi-generational prints. The Holland still was not as sharp as seeing the film on "Youtube.com" because it was a step or so from the actual film it was taken from. We could blow up that still capture of Holland as seen from a distance and it would remain blurred. Bill A politicians answer as I expected. I have the film on cd, and I can assure you it is much sharper than the Youtube film. I can also assure you that the "whitewash" is still there cutting through the tree in this sharper than the Youtube version. As I said, your answer was reasonable, but in error, and probably not having seen the Sharper than Youtube version I can excuse you from thinking that what you are seeing as blur would also be blurred in the original film..it's not. Now back to the question now that you have the knowledge that the original film is unblurred. What could be the cause of the whitewas effect? Duncan Duncan ... were you talking about my reply to you or yours to me when it came to sounding like a politician ... because I don't know what it is that you were trying to say? I mean, it is nice that you have a better print than what is on Youtube.com, but I referenced it because the capture posted in this thread was not as clear as seeing Youtube's version. The point that I thought that I made quite clear was that the closest copies to the original are generally the clearest for seeing detail. The exception could be from being shot out of focus. And before you tell me that your capture is from your CD and how your CD version is clearer than 'Youtubes.com' ... the illustration image that was used in this thread is a good example of how definition is lost as a photo is removed even further from its original. Bill

No, being a film has little to do with it. If Moorman of had a zoom on her camera and used it for that area, then the image would be better. And don't let the point get brushed under the rug whereas the original or best film prints (movie or still) offer the best views over multi-generational prints. The Holland still was not as sharp as seeing the film on "Youtube.com" because it was a step or so from the actual film it was taken from. We could blow up that still capture of Holland as seen from a distance and it would remain blurred. Bill

Great question, Duncan and let's see if I can answer that for you by showing you an example of what I have been saying for years now. Let us start by comparing your illustration to the actual film it was taken from. Here is the link to Holland's interview showing the same view, but much sharper. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYj3FAUHwro...ted&search= Note how the color tones blend together. As Lane and Holland make it to the steam pipe - the green tree foliage of the distant tree near the Badge Man location, along with the wood color of the fence, along with the color of the mens faces all seem to look alike. As the camera is panned back from the knoll as Holland and Lane stand at the fence - the trees seem somewhat faded and not very clear - dark spots seen in places while other areas seem to be missing (washed out as you have put it), but when the camera zooms in - what is actually there becomes more apparent. As with the drum scan of Moorman's print - it has faded over time and has lost its clarity. This is why I have asked that people not totally rely on an inferior print, but rather look at good prints and/or the scans from the original so to allow themselves the best views to make their interpretations from. The Holland still is not as sharp as the film - the blurred still looks like a washout occurred in places whereas the sharper film does not. Bill

Bernice, The measurements that Gary had given pertaining to the spacing of the fence post were how he found them in the year he measured them. I believe Gary may have told me that the fence and post had been replaced by then and that the original spacing of the post may have been different than how they were at the time of the assasination. I will check that information with Gary again later today if it helps. It was the fence slats that Gary feels are standard and had not changed in width. The Holland location in Lane's interview: If one looks at Moorman's photo at the Hat Man location they will notice that from Moorman's angle the Hat Man looks to be almost under the second small tree from the eastmost corner of the fence. The exact same small tree is where I see Holland in the Lane interview. This tells me that Holland chose the Hat Man location for where he believed a shot had come from. The fence is 5' tall. (black line) The three red lines are of equal length to the black line. Holland is 2.5 red lines from the corner of the fence, which is somewhere around 13 feet from what I can approximate. Bill

David, this has been posted on before - an extensive forum search on either this forum or Lancer's should be of some help. And yes, Gary Mack is aware of Thompson taking his test photo. I think Gary was the first person years ago to tell me about it. In fact, I think Josiah covered the Hat Man in his book "Six Seconds in Dallas". Bill

Yes, that is the fedora outline that has been labeled Hat Man. Jack has called the Dallas sky seen over the fence - "smoke". As was posted in the past on this forum ... Josiah Thompson went to the plaza many years ago and went to Moorman's location to see if anything in the trees or RR yard could account for that hat shape and Josiah found it to not be there. Josiah's conclusion was that it could have been someone seen in Moorman's photo who left the area after the shooting. I am however puzzled ... hasn't Jack said that he believed Ed Hoffman? Ed saw one man near the fence and that man had on a hat. The other man that Bowers spoke of had been seen about 15 feet or so away. Bill

How subtle. Is there not a JFK related point to make? (maybe as I read on) "Is either one of these circles the locus for Hatman" ??? In any event I am posting a sharp image of the Hat Man location. I think you'll find that the fence is blocking out where the face would be and only what looks like the top of a 'fedora' hat can be seen over the fence from Moorman's upward angle to the top of the knoll. Bill Miller

I am sorry that systematically and logically investigating a photograph is considered an old trick to you, EBC. There are two views looking towards the fence that I have addressed .... both showing the actual fence and its slats. One is Moorman's photo and the other is the Lane interview with Holland. Knowing the measurements of objects within a photograph can be beneficial in determining the size of other objects thought to be seen in the same photograph. So maybe instead of viewing such data as a "preoccupation" .. try seeing it as necessary so to help test the accuracy of your conclusions. Remember: "By their fruits ye shall know them". Bill Miller

"By their fruits ye shall know them" is quite an appropriate line for this matter. It has been pointed that you are using a poor quality print to work with and it is a fact that once information is lost from a copy print - then it cannot be reclaimed from that particular photo source no matter how high the resolution of the scan was set for. All that is accomplished is a blown-up view of a fuzzy photo. The area that Duncan said is "washed out" is a mistake on his part. He and the rest of you have been invited to contact those who have either seen the original or best prints so to see for yourselves that between the top of the fence to the underside of the tree foliage is nothing but the Dallas sky .... which means that what you think is an assassin has no lower body under his alleged torso. To date no one has said that they have followed up on this additional information that was presented early on in this topic. And other than just saying that one believes the alleged floating torso to be in perspective - nothing addressing this alleged figure has really been demonstrated to show why the image is scaled properly to conform to the laws of perspective. The Holland interview showing Sam's head next to the fence slats and the width of a single fence slat was also offered as proof that the alleged Duncan head is not scaled correctly to conform to the laws of perspective and yet I have not seen where that information has even been considered before just merely saying that the size of the alleged head looks correct to some of you. Yes - by their fruits ye shall know them! So other than just offering a conclusion ... is it possible to follow up on the evidence presented against its accuracy and maybe address it with actual data rather than to merely rely on a belief system? Jack was right about working on these images photographically. Groden had said the same thing to me in the past. Groden believes that this is why the prints Jack and Gary used were superior to those latter computer images of Moorman's photo that researchers are using at the current time. Bill Miller

"Baiting" would be a fair term IMO. In the legal game it is called a "leading question". I have heard Jack's arguments many times and I know how he tries to get around the things that show his alteration claims erroneous. For instance, asking Jack if the Altgens #6 photo is genuine can be seen as baiting because it set Jack up to approve a photo before I show his mistake by way of it. If one is going to whine about using such a tactic in debate, then we might as well not call this 'the JFK assassination debate'. Bill Miller

The gap is "irrelevant"? Jack, you have gone so far as to imply that the drum scan had been altered. You said someone created a gap that does not exist on good copies of the Moorman photo. You called it a "Fake Gap". Read below .... 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

David, It's like you and Debra are talking about two different people ... maybe there really is more than one Bill Miller I am glad that you pointed that error out. I must have missed someone saying that - who was it? I totally agree that it was not me who invented GIF animation. Bill

Myra ... when you are done doing a little provoking yourself, please feel free to tell us what the "lie" was? I can ask this question in confidence that you cannot state something that was never said. In fact, it was never specifically stated what I was referring to, nor was it ever stated as to what level concerning a possible loss of respect some people might gotten from it. It could have been anything from keeping a messy room to swearing in church. I believe that it is you people who made more of it than it was and you are still doing it by posting that a "lie" was told when you cannot even tell us what the lie was. I can also say that what I touched on was something I have done myself in my life and I saw nothing wrong with Mike doing it. The point was that some people might not agree and that we all have those crosses to bare. Mikes complaint is that I am too hard on Jack, while others have told me not to let up. The rest is history! Bill Miller

What is there to study? One can go to Dealey Plaza and replicate those images any day of the week. Not understanding perspective and how it works does not mean an image has been altered. I might also add that your 'Moorman retouched' claim doesn't even have your test photo being taken from the right spot. Your pedestal corner almost touches the corner of the window in the colonnade. Moorman's photo shows a gap that one could drive a truck through. In fact, you once claimed that only the 'Drum Scan' of Moorman's photo shows a gap, so I asked that you post a Moorman print or direct us to any source that shows a Moorman print with no visble gap between those two points and to date you have not done that. Are you prepared to do it at this time? Bill

It would be hard to conceive that someone faked an image found on a photo that was filmed for TV less than 35 minutes after the shooting. I might also add that if the image is fake, then Gordon Arnold lied and we both have looked into Gordon's story and found it to be credible. I also agree that the Badge Man insert in EBC's image is not scaled accurately. Bill

The fence slats were 3.5 inches in width according to Groden. The fence has been replaced several times over since the assassination and the newer slats are not the same. The average human face is between 8 to 10 inches in width. Gary Mack did a study on the fence in the late 90's. Gary wrote: " .... from research I did in 1995 and 1997. The knoll stockade fence slats were 3" wide. The metal support posts were 80-84 inches apart on the parking lot side, but most were 81" apart. I did not make notes about specific distances for each post and all the posts have since been replaced in slightly different location. Initially, when the fence was installed a few years before the assassination, it was built with Michigan White Cedar wood, which was purchased in Dallas at Sears." The image doesn't help - the fence has been replaced since the assassination. What might help is to watch the Lane/Holland interview showing close-ups of Holland's face up by the fence. Bill

Well, one can always count on your responses being void of JFK facts, but at least their getting funnier the more insane your replies get. Bill

I am starting to think that you (Miles) live a very dull boring life. You might be impressed with EBC's scan and you may even feel that it is refreshing, but in reality as Jack will support - A large blow-up of a blurry print is only a blurry print blown up. In other words ... no more clarity can be achieved that wasn't present when the blurry photo was scanned. This is why people like Jack like to handle the originals or at least a first generation print. The point I made was enlarging an image is different than enhancing it. But seeing how you have drawn attention to the work involved in scanning a photo - Yes ... one places an image on the scanner - sets the DPI resolution - then hits the scan button. If the truth be known - it probably took more effort to write this part of my response than it did to set up the scan. Well Miles, if you hadn't cropped off the rest of my sentence you would have seen that it referred to the alleged images not being legitimate ... but I think you already knew that. Here is the sentence before you willfully and purposely cut part of it out ... " then one isn't going to find legitimate shapes and figures after the clarity has been lost." Miles, these ridiculous responses are only hurting yourself. What a kook! I believe that even Jack said that what I posted was accurate. You know what they say - One man's facts are another man's pollution. (eyes rolling) Bill Miller