Bill Miller

I welcome it for it will only strengthen my point. Bill

I agree, Craig, but my intention was to bring up the gap to show a history of how far Jack and his supporters will go to promote alteration despite the evidence to the contrary. This all fits in with the taking of ridiculously degraded images and inventing Zapruder and Sitzman stand-ins, which none of these guys would ever go on a national news show and make themselves look like total morons like they have been willing to do here. Jack will defame someone like Thompson, myself, you, or anyone else to promote a knowingly false claim. Then when a response like mine calls Jack on his behavior, it seems to not have upset people that Jack has withheld information and deceived his followers, but instead they turn on the messenger like a pack of wild dogs. When did John F. Kenedy's murder become a joke to these people whereas they wouldn't give the man's memory an honest investigation based on factual evidence instead of one based on lies and deception? Anyone can make a mistake, but the withholding the Gordon Cooper Moorman copy so not to expose your own false claim isn't doing anyone here any good. So people will understand ... I attack someone's credibility when I find that they have double talked or misled others in order to promote their cause. Jack on the other hand will make outlandish claims about people and hide evidence if he needs to so to give a false impression that he is sincere in his accusations and that is what is most intolerable IMO. Moorman has gone on record telling Mark Oakes that her being in the street is silly. Jack used a carefully edited clip of Jean Hill saying how she stepped into the street so to make himself look correct, while leaving out the fact that Jean said that she had gotten back out of the street before the shooting had started. If you or I had done such a dishonest thing in order to salvage a falsehood pertaing to the alleged search for the truth - we'd be black listed by the JFK research community. Did the Warren Commission try and slant the evidence away from a conspiracy - I believe that they did. To me that only shows a disregard for justice in the murder of President Kennedy. So then how can it be any different when someone claiming a conspiracy occurred follows along the same despictable tatics? Shame on those who have attempted to reduce a forum such as this to a game of tossing aside good images so to play "see what you can make out of this artifact". John Kennedy once said that a mistake isn't a mistake unless one refuses to correct it. When are certain individuals here going to start correcting their mistakes! Bill Miller

Good. You're fired. Your response is just what I am talking about. How about you, Paul ... are you going to contact MSNBC, FOX NEWS, or any other news affiliate and share these ground breaking finds wih the world or are you satisfied with just making stupid add nothing remarks on what is supposed to be an education forum? Let us see just how serious this topic is to you! Bill

David, you remind me of a dumb old bass who when it sees something shiny - it always bites at it while not thinking that it may have a hook in it. We are talking about the gap in Moorman's photo - and that gap is in all of the prints made of Moorman's photo. Jack posted that his position has always been that the gap is immaterial, but that has not been his previous position. Let me share with you what Jack has said about that gap ... 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 In yet another response about the gap, Jack says nothing about the gap being immaterial. Instead he says the following ... Additionally, as I have always pointed out, the corner of the pedestal is not square, but is offset by about an inch. The "gap" advocates refuse to recognize this. When retouching the "drum scan", they also were ignorant of the CAMBER of the top of the pedestal (for shedding rainwater). It is NOT A FLAT SURFACE, but is raised more than an inch in the center. When they retouched the top of the pedestal, they made it a STRAIGHT LINE, not a curve. Jack White So it seems that Jack's defense shifted to the drum scan being retouched. It seems that everything that Jack cannot understand has been altered. It's certainly not hard to see why his followers don't bother taking his ground breaking/earth shattering claims to the news media. Craig Lamson explained that no retouching occurred to the drum scan. Craig: As I was reading this old thread I found this question by you David and its time to correct the record. When Tink had the Moorman 5 copy neg drum scanned in San Fran he had the the scanner tech make two copies of the cd containing the file. All the details of the scan are available at our web page on the Moorman 5. Tink had the scanner tech sign each original cd and he sent one to me and one to G. Mack for the 6 floor. Gary still has this original disk. When I recieved the disk I did noting to the file....nothing..repete...nothing. No changes what so ever. I simply made dupilcates of the master disk supplied by Tink and sent them out in the mail. The file you recieved is exactly as it came off the scanner. The master disk (with the scanners techs signature) was returned to Tink. Any claims by White that the image was retouched is pure crap. The file is as it came from the scanner...and I might add it matches the print that was made from the same neg perfectly, as well as every other file I have seem from the Moorman except for that crappy scan White likes to promote. And even that one when subjected to careful study also shows the same gap as all the other Moormans floating around. So now getting back to the comment that Jack made that Thompson invented the gap and that the gap doesn't exist on good copies ... let us see what ever copy that Jack is talking about where he says the gap does not exist. How about that Gordon Smith copy? You know .... the one that Jack spoke about when he said that it is one of the best that he has. Surely Jack isn't limited to only having Bernice post severely degraded blobs and blurs ... let us see the great Gordon Smith copy! I personaly believe that the Gordon Smith copy dooes not support the allegation Jack leveled at Josiah Thompson. If it did, then Jack would have posted it with his allegations. I also believe that Jack and his alteration supporters know this and that is why no one will ever risk looking like a complete fool to a national audience in order to bring these so-called ground breaking/earth shattering finds to the world.

That is not what you said, Jack! You claimed to have replicated where Mary Moorman was standing and your first example photograph had these thick lines over the edge of the pedestal hiding the fact that the gap was missing in your so-called recreation photo. Ron Hepler, Josiah Thompson, myself and some others got after you for hiding that flaw in your example picture. Eventually you had no choice but to show it. Then Thompson offered up the drum scan and your position then was that Josiah had invented the gap with his drum scan. You went as far as to say that the drum scan was the only Moorman print that showed the gap. You were then challeneged you to take any of the known Moorman copies made before the drum scan and show us that there was no gap in any of them. You then went silent and never produced any such thing. You must have finally realized that the jig was up. Now once your 'no gap' claim was exposed as yet another erroneous claim of yours - you have suddenly come up with a new spin about the gap being immaterial. What ever you do Jack - don't admit you were wrong all along. Bill Miller

Jack, How about having Bernice post one of your non-drum scan Moorman prints so we can see what you are talking about. Bill

My experience has been in taking photography classes in school and learning from people like Groden, but I think you were talking about photo interrpetation skills which cannot be learned from a text book. It has been said to be an art form based on experience and an understanding of perspective ... not to mention the 100's of hours I have spent in the plaza studying all these filming locations. So I have something going for me and is why Groden wrote that Jack is always wrong on these matters whereas he believes that I have been consistently correct. I will allow the forum archives to be my resume. Bill

Sorry, David .... you flip flop around so much like a carp laying on a river bank trying to get back in the water that its hard to say what your position is at any given moment. I offer an example below. FLIP: 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 FLOP: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15 post #19 David Healy: I go with the Z-film is altered ...

Jack has a tendency to change is mind depending on his needs at the moment. The drum scan is sharp in Jack's eyes until he has to defend why his recreation Moorman LOS didn't show the gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window ... then all of a sudden it is an altered image. Jack cannot produce any of the other Moorman photos that he claims do not show a gap, but nevertheless ... that's just a small detail in the effort to make everything appear altered. His use of the Altgens 6 photo on the book "Hoax" wehereas he called in genuine and can be used to validate other assassination images is another example. Seeing that now he is aware that Moorman and Hill's shadows are coming from the grass, which shows his having them in the street is nonsense, then I am sure that he will now claim that Altgens 6 is altered. Isn't it ironic how in the end it has been these guys own words that has hurt the credibility of their claims. Bill look like this is appropriate response here, too! dgh: sit-down! the above from someone who thought increasing screen resolution increased detail in the image..... LMAO! But we won't talk about that, will we? Actually David, the appropriate response would be for you to show us a Moorman print that doesn't show the gap that I speak of ... so at this time I ask that you provide such a print to show us that Jack is right. You can bet your sweet behind that if what Jack said was true, then he would have posted it long ago when asked to do so. So now that you have trolled your way into the discussion, I ask that you show us such a print. Bill Miller

David, you certainly are the king of spin. it is not the screen resolution that I ever said would increase the detail of an image. It is the resolution that the image was saved at that matters before trying to increase its size.

Robert Groden doesn't jerk any chains - if contacted, he will take the time to address questions based on his knowledge and expertise. I have never seen or heard of Robert merly trolling a forum and giving the type of say nothing responses that I have seen you do, David. And so you know this from yet another time that I have had to respeat this to you ... Robert testified that the one photo offered into evidence had signs of tampering done to it. It was the other photographer who had published photos of OJ at a football game that convinced the jury that O.J. had once wore the Bruno Magli shoes. When is the using of the poorest quality images possible so to draw characters out of pixel distortion, film transfer artifacts, and light spots seen through trees and on shelter walls considered further research? One would think that your definition of a "nutter" might be someone who takes ridiculously degraded images and draws distorted people onto them so to make CT's look like idiots. I would think that you'd be more concerned about the ground they are losing for CT's looking credible. Some of us who believe there was a conspiracy want to have it proven by way of hard credible evidence and not just by doing something short of pouring gasoline out on the sidewalk and trying to make assassins out of the swirls of light. So not only shame on those individuals who implement such practices, but also shame on the trolls who try and defend it.

Jack has a tendency to change his mind depending on his needs at the moment. The drum scan is sharp in Jack's eyes until he has to defend why his recreation Moorman LOS didn't show the gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window ... then all of a sudden it is an altered image. Jack cannot produce any of the other Moorman photos that he claims do not show a gap, but nevertheless ... that's just a small detail in the effort to make everything appear altered. His use of the Altgens 6 photo on the book "Hoax" whereas he called in genuine and can be used to validate other assassination images is another example. Seeing that now he is aware that Moorman and Hill's shadows are coming from the grass, which shows his having them in the street is nonsense, then I am sure that he will now claim that Altgens 6 is altered. Isn't it ironic how in the end it has been these guys own words that has hurt the credibility of their claims. Bill

Cut the crap! Either put up or shut up! Post your lists! EBC EBC, Go read Jack's definition of the word "Provocateur" so to find out why I am not going to post such a list. I will address your use of the word "crap" though ... I will show you how Groden used it when speaking about the kind of nonsense you are trying to defend ... Robert Groden: I have been a close friend of Jack's for thirty years ...................... In the matter of the Zapruder films authenticity and many of the other issues such as foreshortening, and other technical issues, you have been 100% right and Jack has been 100% wrong ........ The record must remain straight ......... This Zapruder film alteration foolishness has done so much harm, that it can not be measured. It is now spilling over into other areas of the photographic evidence in the Kennedy case. I am extremely frustrated by it all ............ Jack knows how disappointed I am about the damage that has been done by the irresponsible crap that has misled so many people in this case.

Jack, the images in Bell and Moorman DO NOT "register precisely" and it is your inability to see these things that makes your work suffer. The doorway widths to the shelter DO NOT match The corners of the south end of the concrete wall DO NOT match The foliage outline of the tree over the south end of the concret wall DOES NOT match The distance from the edge of the outer shelter wall to the doorway DOES NOT match The distance from the inside edge of the shelter doorway to the colonnade windows DO NOT match The same sunspots on the south outside shelter wall are seen in both the Moorman and Bell image. The sunspots merely shift to the left and upward because of the angle change that each photographer had to the shelter. Chris used a gradual fade in process which hid these shift changes because the eye doesn't pick them up when offered in such small increments. Bill

Jack, EBC has given you some good advice that might be a little too technical for you. If this is the case, then go to a computer store and by screen extensions that will allow the image to be seen in its full glory.

Some of the names are in this thread - now contact MSNBC with your ground breaking finds!

EBC, The list should be formed by the individual having to read these threads in hopes of being educated pertaining to JFK's assassination. I will let the ongoing lack of reasoning and the poor quality of the imagery being used to invent wall dancers represent who should and who shouldn't be on the list in question. I will leave it up to each person viewing these ridiculous presentations to decide who is serious and who is not. Like I said before, if any one of you truly believe this to be real research, then let he or she present it to the news world and ask that it be investigated. So far, JFK assassination alteration claims pertaining to the films have been being made for years now and other than putting them into a book to sell to the public, I have not seen where any of its authors or supporters have taken it a step beyond so to present this alleged ground breaking/earth shattering news to the world. Why is that ... is it not important enough to these so-called dedicated serious researchers? How about you, EBC ... let you be the first to show up on MSNBC proclaiming these great finds pertaining to the "Zapruder and Sitzman Stand-In claim". Bill Miller

Chuck, the south pasture sloped downward, so yes - Bell was higher elevated and looking directly at the colonnade on a more even plane whereas Moorman was at the curb on Elm Street and looking upward at the same structure. This is why we can see the RR cars in Bell's film and not in Moorman's. This is simple perspective that not only we were taught in grade school, but it is also something that can be duplicated by the simpliest of means right at home. Not long ago someone on this forum thought they had a Muchmmore frame matched up to the Morman photo. The fact was that Muchmore was just off to the right of Moorman's line of sight and when the two images were overlaid ... they appeared to look close, but the background had shifted. In the example Chris made - the windows inside the colonnade shelter have shifted because the two photographers were not on the same line of sight. The RR car fills up most of the windows, thus making them appear to be blacked out. The one window that Chris draws attention to is one that I have had trouble finding on Groden's copy of the Bell film because of its poor quality. On my Bell film I can see two windows and the break in the wall that separates them. The frame Chris has opted to use is blurred just enough that the two windows have merged into one. This is why I asked that he or someone else capture another frame or two so we could make a comparison. So far this has not been done and it seems obvious to me why it hasn't. I, as well as many other researchers, have been to the plaza and seen these views for ourselves and I am telling you that using these crappy looking frames to make claims of images being in synchronous harmony is misleading to someone who doesn't know any better. I mean look at where this has gone now ... It has taken 44 years for someone like Chris to take a poor degraded Bell frame that is filled with digital artifacts to proclaim that Zapruder and Sitzman had stand-ins. Now how insane does that appear to you! Moorman's photo is much clearer than the dark Bell frame and Mary's photo was still in her possession when filmed for TV not 30 - 35 minutes following the assassination and there are no people seen in the shelter doorway. But some boob will ignore this and continue playing games with the poor degraded image. Its like telling someone who is looking through a dirty window and thinks they see all these oddities and you offer them a view through a clean window and they say, "No thanks, I prefer using the dirty window because looking through your window isn't as much fun!" What is being done here that sickens so many other CT's is that John Kennedy's murder is being turned into a 'Gong Show' and what I am saying is shame on those who support such a piss poor level of research that is turning the purpose of this forum into a laughing stock. I mean, its OK for someone not to understand perspective, angles, film stock differences, and so forth. But it is not OK to not be smart enough to understand why someone would want to use a good image for accuracy over a poor image when it comes for looking for detail. People like Chris are either not right upstairs or are purposely trying to make CT's as a whole look like incompetent fools. How did the saying go in the movie 'JFK' ... if they can't eliminate you, then they try and discredit you. What better way to discredit a forum and or its CT's community than to have people filter in some of the most outlandish research ethics into the mix so to make ludicrous claims. It is because of this that some of us have tried to offer some balance so to counter the appearence that all CT's must be lunitics. Bill Miller

Jack, I have posted countless times explaining that Sitzman's dress looks black in Bronson's photo because of the distance he is from the subject in relation to the sun as Zapruder is casting a shadow over her. The same thing happens in the Bell film when you look at all those people on the south pasture. Part's of them that are in direct sunlight shows the color of their clothing while the rest of them being shaded looks black in color. ask yourself why it is that the street in sunlight looks gray, but the parts of it in shadow looks black! So the fact is that I have addressed this over and over and you continue to make the same stupid mistakes over and over so to make something look altered when it isn't. This is exactly why Groden said what he did in the email I shared with this forum. Groden said that you are always wrong and that you have caused a great deal of damage to the researech community over this alteration nonsense. As far as Moorman's photo fitting exactly with the Bell film - this simply is not true, but rather you playing the "close enough" game. Bell was much higher elevated than Moorman was and Bell was off to the side of Mary's line of sight. We should know this when we align any two points of the same from both film sources and note that the background isn't seen the same way between photographer locations. You dopes keep using inferior images to where you start outlining artifacts to the point you start imagining images. It is this type of behavior that Groden commented on concerning the damage you have caused the research community by making CT's look like a bunch of incompetent boobs. If the things you jokers were saying was remotely so, then you'd be on CNN shouting these claims to the world, but you don't - why? The reason why you don't follow through with these alleged ground breaking discoveries is because you know them to be ridiculous and only worth polluting a forum such as this one with them. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for your disregard for sound basic research practices. It has become a childs game for you boobs and so much so that one of you would say, "They're coming out of the woodworks." Bill.

David ... no opinion as to the information that I posted? No rebuttal? We should probably then put you in the trolling player list. Can anyone else do better than David? Bill

Where do you get that idea? Bell stopped and started the camera several times. You are not thinking that his film is a continual record of the events - do you? He also filmed from a higher elevation than Moorman, thus his film has the train car blocking out many of the windows. What people on the pedestal at the same time? By the time Bell filmed the limo passing through the underpass, Sitzman and Zapruder were already getting off the pedestal, so how does one remove an individual who has already removed themselves. Then by the time he filmed people on the walkway - it was much later and hords of people had already went up the knoll. The background is darkened because you are looking at a multigeneration copy of the Bell film. Even the people seen on the south knoll are in silhouette. You may also wish to check with Groden for it was he that worked on the existing Nix film and a process that he did when copying the film made the walkway area very dark. I suspect that Robert did the same with these other films, as well.

OK - lets separate the game players from the sincere posters. Below is the image in question. I have marked several blotches on the image with red arrows. This image is obviously not a duplicate of what is seen on the actual film, but rather it has been taken from a digital image. When it was said that this was merely the background seen on a poor blurry image - a select few didn't seem to get it and thats now a matter of forum record. Now I am showing these artifacts that are alleged to make up articles of clothing and so on. These artifacts are scattered throughout the image. To understand what has happened here isn't as complicated as understanding simple cross checking procedures concerning the available assassination films and photos, nor is it as complicated as having to understand a beginners course on perspective. Instead it is a really simple matter of seeing these random artifacts as nothing more than something seen on an image so that a select few can play the "see what I can make out of nothing' game. Now people can look at this information and declare which ever claim they wish so that it too, can become a matter of forum record. The choice is pretty simple - its either a result of artifacts being seen on a blurry image or it is a person actually walking on top of the wall? (By the way, it would be interesting to have someone post another frame, possibly one that is a little sharper, so to compare the location of the artifacts seen on one frame with the artifacts seen on the other)

Chuck, maybe you don't need the inconsistent outrageous claims pointed out, but what about those people who do that may not be quite as photographically sharp as you? As far as disinformation not being intentionally given on this forum - you are simply mistaken about that one. Anytime someone repeatedly misstates the record or offers the worst images possible so to create something that isn't present in the better images, then it is an intentional misrepresentation IMO. I will be happy to give examples if you want to hear some. Bill

Craig, most of my stuff is out of state, but as I am packing up the rest of my office, I will see if I have another copy of the DVD here. Bill

****************** That is just your opinion..and you are one of a zillion.... And I want you to know Bill : That no one, is having me do anything, that I choose not to...... I have and will continue, to help anyone in anyway, and with such as anything I may have in my files, folders etc, whatever, I always have and I always will...... No matter what their personal opinions are, which after all, we all have our right to. Do we not.? Be it the assassination, big foot, apollo photos, extraterestrials, whatever, that is everyones right.. Clear... B Bernice, you're talking like a nut! I never said that you didn't have the right to post images for Jack. I just said that Jack's images look like Van Gogh's paintings before he went totally mad and cut his ear off.