Bill Miller

Jack, you put that claim about that photo being genuine in the same book that you claim Moorman and Hill as being in the street. The fact is that you didn't question the authenticity of that photo until AFTER you became aware that it debunked your 'Moorman in the street' nonsense. And how long has he been sitting on this alleged claim? Bill

Jack, It is funny how the thread you started so long ago questioning who I was - had not mentioned that you could have been mistaken. A long time ago when that nonsense went on - I suggested you asking Groden if the guy with the 8 x 10 Dillard negatives was the red headed Miller that Robert knew and today Robert has just told me over the phone that you have not spoken to him about it one time. One would think that after I told you that Robert was there only a short distance away selling his wares and that it was he who pointed you out to me ... that you would have taken that simple step so to not waste any more time talking about something that you must have been mistaken about. You know ... some may have viewed your starting such a thread as a personal attack within itself. Funny how those things work. Now I could be wrong, but isn't the 'salesman' title a new addition to your story? When you get me worked up to CEO - let me know. And about Hodgkins disease - survival depends on early detection. Mine was at "Stage 2", which had at that time about a 90% cure rate. If it has spread to the bones as with a "Stage 4", then you are in trouble. Do you know what stages the people you knew were in when diagnosed with cancer? Bill

Looks like someone is in need of a diaper chance and given his pacifier. Here is one of the examples I used in showing Jack's 'Moorman in the street' claim was wrong by his own words. In the same pages, Jack had written that the Muchmore film showed Hill and Moorman standing in the street. For those trollers who don't know the photographical record - the shadows in the bottom right hand side of the Altgens 6 photo belong to Mary Moorman, Jean Hill and Mary Moorman. In those days, as to some extent today, if Jack knows his agrument is about to unravel ... he gets mad and will refuse to respond/debate the evidence against him. This is exactly why in the past I have first asked an innocent question to get Jack locked down before pointing out his error. Bill Miller

Dixie ... you have a fairly good memory and thanks for taking the time to help set the record straight. If you were in the Plaza on 11/22 and I said I was waiting for Groden, then that is most likely spot on as well for Robert's B-day is the same day of the year that JFK was assassinated and every time I am in Dallas on the anniversary - I have taken Robert to dinner that evening. Sometimes we then will swing by one of the local pubs where Robert likes to go because they have a band there that plays Beatle music throughout the night. Jack has already admitted that he was given an 8 x 10 negative in the plaza, thus that was me. Tony Cummings with staying with me on that trip and he can be seen in a few of the White, Fetzer, Mantik photos while they messed with that "Moorman in the Street" nonsense. I had not heard that Moorman was there that day ... sorry I missed that. Mark Oakes sells signed Moorman photos for Mary and Mark has said to me that Mary thought her being in the street to take her famous photo was silly. If it seems like I have baited Jack ... you are probably right about that. Jack has unknowingly to himself made alteration claims that are destroyed by other claims he has made. The best example was Jack claiming Moorman and Hill were in the street as the limo passed by them and at the same time he is telling the research community that he believes the Altgens photo is genuine and unaltered. Of course, we all know that Moorman and Hill's shadows are coming from the grass, thus Jack's Moorman in the street claim is in error. My baiting was to lay the ground work for showing how Jack's claims fall short on their own merit. I recall asking if he thought Altgens photo was altered so to establish that point before pointing out why he destroys the alteration claim against where Moorman stood in the Zfilm. As many know - I spend a good part of the year in the mountains and get into periods of time that I cannot even get Internet access unless I happen to have traveled somewhere to do so. Bill PS; Debra Conway can probably best state what happened, but I spoke on a Saturday morning and I was alloted 45 minutes as I recall. I believe that I went nearly 1.5 hours and another hour out in the hall afterwards answering questions and showing those negatives at the sunlit windows. That was the year that I met Al carrier who also had been a presenter. I found Al unique. Al is a seasoned law enforcement officer with quite an impressive background right up to working with the SS when the President has been in his area. Getting back to my presentation - I was later told that the audio was not running during my presentation and I am guessing that this is why it may not be found on Lancer's Conference CD.

I agree with Jack 100%. Making high resolution scans of poor blurry reproductions is of no benefit to anyone. Jack had the best prints available to do his work with ... this point seems to continually get forgotten be a few folks. Had Jack of only had the print that these so-called enhancements were made from, then there would not have been a Badge Man or a Gordon Arnold. Jack said, "Your badgeman area is an unrecognizable blur." In case someone still doesn't know what Jack has implied ... let me have a crack at it. If using a copy print that is so blurry that one can no longer see the recognizable images in the good print, then one isn't going to find legitimate shapes and figures after the clarity has been lost. In other words - blurring an image loses information - it doesn't offer new information. Bill

Myra,Very true. Couple of associated thoughts: After pushing to envelope of decency to the breaking point, Miller then happily breaks it, as in the Hogan case. Then when this occurs & members complain, Miller remembers that he has been expelled from other forums. Miller then becomes the mild mannered, affable milk man who purrs & fawns before the Mods who are apparently shocked senseless at witnessing the enormity of Miller's outrage. As an old time troller Miller knows that as time goes by the thread of his outrage will fade away & all will be conveniently forgotten. Miller banks on his alleged reputation as a "photo expert" to cow the mods during the time required for his outrage to drift away into oblivion. A nice con. You people are nuts!!! You make a mockery out of JFK's assassination by spending more time trying to be tabloid writers. My cause consisted of telling Jack that maybe God prevented his post from showing up on the forum - to telling a long time friend on the JFK case that he too could have people say that there are things about him that they might not respect. When he asked what that could be - I sent him a private message answering that question. It was the sh*t disturbers who have made it more than it was. In some aspects - I wish the thread would have stayed in place so people could go back and read exactly what was said and by whom. Miller is Mack - Peters is Miller - Gordon is Miller and Peters. John Simkin pointed out that my writing style is similar to Mack's, but his contacts with Mack have been through emails. Can anyone tell me how I can send email via Gary Mack's email address??? It's little wonder that such ridiculous threads get so much attention from a very select few because the JFK case is much more vast and time consuming to learn compared to reading tabloid type postings. The real Bill Miller

I guess one could say that we were both in the same plaza and be correct. Like I added to an earlier reply ... are you sure that you are not confusing me with the "Brawny" paper towel guy that you may have seen on the package at the super market at some point??? Bill

It was an 8 x 10 negative that I had bought through the National Archives - nothing more. Also prior to your strolling onto the knoll, I had just given a copy to Groden, as well. In fact, I believe I have posted a few times in the past that the filmed 2000 Lancer Conference was taped and I showed that 8 X 10 negative during my presentation. The photo used on this forum was taken for that 2000 Conference. The hair, glasses, face, and suit, along with the person attached to them was the guy that you met in the plaza, who knew Groden, knew Weisberg, Conway, Mack, and had corresponded with Fletcher Prouty for some time. And what about forcing negatives on you? The last accounting of that story had me as "medium build" and there was no mention of me following you anywhere or forcing anything on you. You now have me as a 'thin build' .... are you sure you aren't thin king about the guy on the "Brawny" paper towel package??? You also wasn't in front of the Depository Building either when we met - you were on the steps near Zapruder's pedestal. In fact, I believe it was Robert that said there is Jack ... let him see it. You also rendered an opinion right then and there and that was that all the windows that looked white had been altered. You never noticed the blinds were closed in some of the windows or even half opened in others, thus the glare from the sun illuminated the back of them. (Now if this was said on the DellaRosa forum ... I'd probably be banned because it didn't agree with Jack. Below is what you originally posted before painting the story for what ever purpose you had in mind for doing so .... "It was a number of years ago on one of the many occasions that I was in Dealey Plaza, probably in November. I was in front of the depository and a man came up to me and introduced himself as Bill Miller. He was of average size and appearance and dressed in suit and necktie and carried a briefcase. I had never seen him before, but he stood out in the casually dressed crowd of people. He asked if I was "the well-known JFK photoanalyst". He wanted to show me something and get my opinion. Opening his briefcase, he handed me an 8x10 negative of a well-known photo showing the sniper nest window. He claimed he saw another person in the window adjacent to the open window and wanted my opinion. I looked at the neg and told him that I could not give him an opinion without enlarging the neg and studying it. He gave me the neg and asked me to study it...so I took it home and eventually made a computer scan and studied it. I think I eventually gave him an opinion, but can't remember what I told him. Attached is a scan of the negative he gave me. He tried very hard to ingratiate himself and make friends. He seemed eager to make the acquaintance of me, Jim Marrs and other researchers. I thought little of the incident, since I am always approached by many researchers from many states on occasions like this." Jack, I had never heard of that forum until to told me about it ... it was you who invited me there. Let us at least keep the recent history straight even if we can't keep the ancient history right. Bill

Don't forget the name "James Gordon" and/or "Buck Naked" which is another alias I like to use from time to time.

Mike has gotten more attention drawn to him from you bringing up the issue in several threads now than what I posted. As i recall, it was Jack who I responded to by merely suggesting that his lost post may have been an act of God. I think Jack's direction was that it was deleted by someone at the highest levels of the forum. Hey Miles ... maybe you can crack that mystery one day.As far as John deleting any threads - I was not aware, nor do I disagree with his decision to do so. I responded to Jack - Mike responded to me - so I responded back to Mike letting him know that we all could have things about us looked down upon by someone somewhere. From then on it was mostly you (Miles) that made a big deal out of it all. The above is why I don't cut Jack much slack - though I cut him more these days than before. Anyone disagreeing with Jack's silly alteration claims was considered to be attacking Jack on the DellaRosa forum. This information is nothing new. As far as Larry goes ... Jack once posted a photo of Larry and I shaking hands and wanted to make a big deal out of it as if we were conspiring to come after Jack. I even think someone posted a screen print showing my name on the forum at the same time Larry was on here, thus the nonsense soon died down. I don't recall, Miles ... did David Healy make that post before or after Jack posted the photo of Larry and I shaking hands? You are aware that it was on this forum that those films were shown to be in sinc with one another. And I think we all know by now who James Gordon is - right? I gotta tell you, Miles. If that photo of you is accurate, then I cannot see you being concealed by much of anything and I'm pretty damned sure that crouching isn't going to help hide you. You should have been on the JFK research forum ... you would have seen lots of similar post and writting styles zinging the nonsense that Jack was saying in those days. If someone finds that post someone made showing Larry and I on at the same time - be my guest and post it again. Right now Larry, myself, and James Gordon have a CIA meeting to attend. Bill Miller

I could not agree more with Charles. In fact, what he said is quite wise IMO. The thread is already archived, unless deleted. But even if it was deleted from the public forum ... it should still be logged elsewhere. Personally, I do not what anyone could complain about when talking about certain threads. If it was a view on the evidence of the JFK assassination whereas data was being kept from the public by deleting such post/ threads, then that would be wrong. On the other hand, if these are threads that don't address the assassination and are designed to complain and bitch about things that are assumed and/or presumed that has no relevancy to the educating people on the assassination of JFK, then they are not threads that this forum should have to buy web space for .... so to speak. Bill

EBC, Do you always go off on tangents without thinking things through first? Maybe to help show my stupidity - please tell this forum how wide a fence slat is? How about the average width of a human face? I know the answers to these questions and I also pointed out the clip showing Holland's head next to those slats, so get the facts and then come back and tell me how stupid I am. As far as your trajectory lines in the image I used ... The two lines are less than a foot apart at the fence .... are you saying it was your purpose to make us aware that a shot could have come over one fence slat or possible another one 3 - 4 slats away??? If the answer is yes, then please explain how that was important? Thanks! Bill Miller

Question for Miles .... Do you know for sure that Kathy hasn't sought the opinions of other moderators before making a decision to close a thread or are you just assuming something to be true without first getting the facts? Would not the proper question have been "Kathy, even though you explained why you closed the thread, what is the protocol for closing a thread?" Bill Miller

EBC, I read the post pretty carefully and because they are archived ... I can even go back and read them again and again. You didn't even mention the word "trajectory" in your original post with the images, but you did mention them showing "perspective". In fact, the image I used in my response showed two red lines not 4 to 6 fence slats apart with the same field of view, thus I could not imagine that you were showing two separate trajectories of only a few fence slats apart, nor could I imagine the importance of even mentioning it. Call me ignorant, but your mentioning of the word "perspective" and with the two lines starting at only a few slat boards apart and leading back to JFK did appear to be 'perspective lines' as I read your post. Bill Here is what you said in your original post ... Duncan, Please view these reconstruction images: Compare size of heads of car occupants as viewed from the fence. Anyone in the car would see that anyone standing at the fence would have the same size of head as those in the car if the car occupants could view themselves from the same position as that of the person standing at the fence. (Impossible, of course!) Anyone standing on the grass verge could see a correspondingly smaller head at the fence since h/she (on the grass verge) would be further from the seen head (on the fence). If Duncan's shooter's head was well concealed it might have been virtually invisible or virtually indiscernible to anyone standing on the grass verge at an initial, secondary or even tertiary glance. Duncan's shooter would have been only potentially visible or discernible for a matter of seconds (if even that long). The shooter would have broken cover for the minimal amount of time it took him to execute the action. It is amazing that Moorman's photo captured the very second that the shot impacted with JFK's head and in doing so Moorman, perforce, captured the shooter. The images show the exact same event viewed from different locations and perspectives. The graphics structures' measurements are based on 1963-era maps of Dealey Plaza, I hope this helps,Duncan EBC "

I think the Weitzman report said that when asked where the man saw some through a bush being tossed - he said over near the steam pipe - not over the steam pipe. You should probably go find the report and read it before critiquing it.

And to think none of them guys mentioned what it was that was seen tossed near the steam-pipe as reported to Seymour Weitzman.

The view Holland had and the stacking of the trees can be seen in the Lane clip from 'Rush to Judgment'. The larger trees were further down the hill ... the smaller trees were up near the fence and are also seen in the Holland clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYj3FAUHwro...ted&search= Bill

What does one do when a witness was never called to give testimony before the WC ... does that mean they were never there at the assassination? The point is - if certain questions are not asked, then they are not answered. It also appears that Holland had said something to Lane about not all of his remarks making it into the WCR. Bill

I cannot see what Lifton's opinions on the assassination have to do with his capability in being able to look up what the average weight of a human brain is. It's like Garrison used to to ask why is it automatically assumed that a street walker can't have good eye sight. If you dispute Lifton's findings on what an average brain weighs, then please post your rebuttal, if you agree with Lifton's weight findings, then my original question still stands. Bill Miller

Thanks for the link, Duncan. And as much as I can appreciate peoples guesses when it comes to distance ... would not the footage of Holland taking Lane to the spot be the most accurate than a wild guess at the distance from the corner it was? I would think so. Bill

... And it seems that trolling critics seldom know the case well enough. Robert Tannenbaum was a HSCA investigator. The HSCA had the document. The evuslion was on the right rear side of the head - not the left. For one to adequately debate the evidence of the case - they should first learn it correctly Rather me go over all the evidence ... take a moment to do some forum searches under "avulsion" or "evulsion" and read what has been written. The weight of the brain is mentioned in the autopsy report. I will suggest looking in Lifton's book "Best Evidence" for the information as to what a normal brain should weigh. Are you aware that under that chrome strip is a solid metal frame? Now don't you feel silly having not even checked the basics before voicing criticism for one side or the other. (sigh~) Read through the witnesses statements to find the answer.5. Clearly you haven't read much history and certainly haven't WRITTEN ANY history to have this bass-ackwards method of proving a point. When a person makes a bizarre claim (you) it is up to THAT person to provide their own proof. Scholars don't write a book and then in the endnote section include the line "If you don't believe what I've said then YOU go out and do the research." This is clearly reflective of an untrained method of research you employ. If YOU make the claim...then YOU provide the proof. I have cited several witnesses and there are more. On the other hand you have not cited anything but your own opinion which seems to be lacking in facts. You are being ridiculous. Lane isn't the source - he filmed the actual witnesses and it is their statements that I referred to. By the way, email Gary Mack and ask him to email you the name of the press bus photographer who also mentioned seeing smoke as the press bus passed the scene of the shooting. Gary, nor I could remember the guys name at the moment, but he does exist and I am sure that Gary will eventually remember the name. Actually, I was referring to her statement in regards to smelling gunpowder. And about this "swirling" crap ... look at the Muchmore film and tell me which direction that Hill and Moorman's coats are blowing. The weather service had the wind coming out of the west/northwest. At the time that the shooting was happening - the Cabell car was already under the window - six floors below - and heading into the wind as proven by Hill and Moorman's coats. In fact, no smoke was ever reported seen coming from the 6th floor window which was six stories above the street. Do you know for sure that McKinnon had not told her story to anyone before 1983. I ask because there is a difference in not telling anyone the story and not making the story public. Maybe Brown didn't take into consideration the direction the wind was traveling (see Muchmore film) and he may very have heard shots from up the street ... the last two shots reported by Kellerman came over the top of one another, thus could have been heard as one single shot by some. The point is that regardless of what shots Brown heard ... he could not have smelled gunpowder coming from the 6th floor with the wind blowing down Elm Street towards Houston. I think I have proven one thing so far ... I think I have proven that you haven't done a lot of research on your own long enough to know the case in a way that makes you capable of logically debating it. replies like "Who said that? What is the source? I want to read it myself!' are all signs that this stuff is new to you. Here is Gary's email, so feel free to ask him for the names of the RR workers who mentioned seeing the smoke. I think Lane filmed three or four of them in "Rush to Judgment" ... Holland, Dodd, Carr, and maybe Simmons come to mind. Bill

Tannenbaum was the source I gave. He said it in an interview in the MWKK series. Your tone is much like a LNr troller would use by automatically assuming that all CTs most commonly make things up. Kinda in reverse of you saying the evuslion was on the "left" side of JFK's head when in fact it was always reported to be on the "right" rear side of JFK's head. The evuslion was on the right rear side of the head - not the left. For one to adequately debate the evidence of the case - they should first learn it correctly. Would that be the brain that 1/3 of it was said to be missing at Parkland only to show up at Bethesda as a full intact brain weighing of normal size??? I ignored the question because it assumes that no shots fired from behind had missed their target. The large rounded dent in the chrome strip above the windshield could have caused fragments to bounce back and land in the front of the limo. It's all left to speculation. Read through the witnesses statements to find the answer. I believe that Mark Lane interviewed several employees of the RR who saw the smoke. Mrs. CABELL. I did not know, because I did not see a hand or a head or a human form behind it. It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle, "Earle, it is a shot", and before I got the words out, just as I got the words out, he said, "Oh, no; it must have been a "the second two shots rang out. After that, there is a certain amount of confusion in my mind. I was acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder. I was aware that the motorcade stopped dead still. There was no question about that. Cheryl McKinnon mentioned seeing the smoke in her article. Gary Mack ran her article in his news letter. Yet Earle V. Brown was a Dallas cop who was stationed on the railroad overpass that crossed the Stemmons Freeway. By his own estimation he was about 100 yards from the Triple Underpass. The following testimony can be found in WC volume 6, pp. 233-234: Mr. BALL. Did you hear the shots? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. How many? Mr. BROWN. Three. Mr. BALL. Where did they seem to come from? Mr. BROWN. Well, they seemed high to me, actually; if you want, would you like me to tell you? Mr. BALL Sure, tell it in your own words. Mr. BROWN. Well, down in that river bottom there, there's a whole lot of pigeons this particular day, and they heard the shots before we did because I saw them flying up — must have been 50, 75 of them. Mr. BALL. Where was the river bottom? Mr. BROWN. You know, actually off to the — between us and the, this overpass you are talking about there's kind of a levee along there. It's really a grade of the railroad, is what it is; that's where they were and then I heard these shots and then I smelled this gun powder. Mr. BALL. You did? Mr. BROWN. It come on it would be maybe a couple minutes later so — at least it smelled like it to me. Mr. BALL. What direction did the sound seem to come from? Mr. BROWN. It came it seemed the direction of that building, that Texas . . . Mr. BALL. School Book Depository? Mr. BROWN. School Book Depository. Gary Mack said to me today that about half on the underpass workers had mentioned seeing the smoke come through the trees. I can only recommend that you first learn the witnesses statement record before becoming a critic for one side or the other. Bill Miller

Duncan, For your exclusive edification, a short note on the fallacy of the Vichy perspective: This is out of perspective as a possible weapon candidate for Duncan Man. Conclusion? Join the Maquis. Miles, One cannot help but notice that a few of you sure waste a lot of forum space by posting silly junk images rather than to contribute anything of substance to the topic. Would you care to spend a little time and try and scale Duncan's outline man for the forum? Bill

This was the extent of information you posted with your illustrations ... "Anyone in the car would see that anyone standing at the fence would have the same size of head as those in the car if the car occupants could view themselves from the same position as that of the person standing at the fence. (Impossible, of course!) Anyone standing on the grass verge could see a correspondingly smaller head at the fence since h/she (on the grass verge) would be further from the seen head (on the fence)." This is the photo I referenced. Two lines not 4 to 6 fence slats apart going to a particular reference point. About the width of a normal sized head. Now who would have guessed them to be perspective lines and not trajectory lines (sigh~) - especially when there has been no evidence presented of there being two shots fired from that location, nor of two shooters positioned not a foot apart! And so you know - Normally a 'line of sight' line is done by placing a single line on an image. The view from the fence is a 'single view', thus why would there be two lines of trajectory not more than a foot apart? You don't think that example is misleading as to the purpose of those lines?? Bill

Duncan, you have posted that opinion several times now without ever showing how you'd scale it any differently. Is there any chance that you'll actually show us how you'd scale the image or is just saying it over and over again going to be the extent of it? It isn't that hard to do you know. You have posted a large image of that location in one response and in another post you have drawn in the lines of the border of what you see as a head. All one has to do is match the surrounding reference points such as sun spots through the foliage to get the outline YOU drew to fit over the Moorman example without the outline. Bill