Bill Miller

Gary, not all my responses are for your benefit as someone who has probably heard it before. This forum takes on new members all the time who have not heard these debates. It's like what they say when you meet someone .... what they will remember about you is their first impression. Jack misstates the record as fact - people know who Jack is, thus they assume that someone who has been around so long must surely know the record, thus what he says must be true. Seasoned researchers will know better. Let me ask you this question ... before I posted the immediate history of the Wiegman and Bell films - did you know them? Bill "Dave Wiegman rode directly to the Trade Mart and then on to Parkland Hospital where he shot more footage for NBC News. Some time after 1pm, his exposed reels were picked up by a WBAP-TV employee and driven from Parkland to the NBC affiliate on the east side of Fort Worth, which was about an hour's drive in those days. The film was processed and shown unedited on NBC at 3pm Dallas time. It was narrated by WBAP-TV newsman Charles Murphy, according to extant video tapes, who confirmed the film was unedited. This means there was no possible time or opportunity to alter the Wiegman film. In fact, comparison of that first broadcast with Groden's version shows there are a few seconds of footage missing from his copy! Furthermore, the former WBAP-TV still has prints of the film dating to 1963. I have video tapes of those prints and they, too, are identical to what was shown at 3pm on November 22, 1963. As for the Bell film, Mark Bell went home with his camera that afternoon and filmed a few scenes outside his Oak Cliff home. They show his wife at the time, his house, and either his mother or hers. After processing of his film, Bell never bothered to inform investigators of his footage. No one knew about it until 1967 when LIFE magazine learned of it and published a few frames. That same year, Josiah Thompson obtained a copy of the film from Bell and Thompson's print is at The Sixth Floor Museum, as is Bell's camera original film. I have examined both. They are identical and there are no splices in either film."

I want you to know Bernice that the images Jack is having you post look very familar to the paintings Van Gogh was creating just before he went totally mad and cut his ear off.

How do we know that Jack isn't a plant being paid to promote the coverup by doing all he can to look like an "incompetenteur"? The WC supporters just love them guys from what I have heard.

Person 1. A poorly "enhanced" crop of a low resolution internet image that shows a jumbled up mess of JPG artifacts. This image is useless. Jack was asked for a precise and informative response and all he offered in return was that severely degraded ridiculous image. I will present the issue once again ... OK, Jack - how about you offering a clear and precise response for a change. The alleged figure has been said to be on the pedestal (presumably with its arm on Sitzman's hip) when viewed from the Betzner or Wiegman line of sight and in post #176 the figure is alleged to be seen just south of the notch in the wall. Is it your position that this alleged figure is running all over hell in these images or could it be that you guys are confusing the background as a figure and the different angles at which these films and photos have been taken to the knoll have caused the background to shift which you have failed to pick up on so far??? Please be precise and stay on point if you can. The alternative is pretty simple. Either the background has shifted between photographer locations which has caused the alleged figure to go from the pedestal to the notch in the concrete wall .... or it is a real person who is dancing around the knoll like Fred Astaire in an old movie with Ginger Rogers. Now you guys can start posting how you see Fred's dance partner.

Jack, I am glad to see that you understand what the word "ignorant" means. In another thread you said this about the Wiegman and the Bell films which will apply to all three of the examples you listed ......................Jack: He has showed an image in Bell VERY SIMILAR TO THE IMAGE IN WIEGMAN. The Wiegman image clearly IS NOT SUNSPOTS ON THE WALL. What should be addressed are the images in each film. After all, BOTH FILMS MAY BE TAMPERED WITH and we must understand what anomalies may have been introduced by the retouchers, whether they be sunspots or men in white shirts. If it looks like a duck....is it? So once again you don't have your facts correct and you have jumped from you not knowing how to explain something to it possibly being altered as a solution. So everyone is not ignorant about the two films in question - allow me to share this information I had learned from Gary Mack. "Dave Wiegman rode directly to the Trade Mart and then on to Parkland Hospital where he shot more footage for NBC News. Some time after 1pm, his exposed reels were picked up by a WBAP-TV employee and driven from Parkland to the NBC affiliate on the east side of Fort Worth, which was about an hour's drive in those days. The film was processed and shown unedited on NBC at 3pm Dallas time. It was narrated by WBAP-TV newsman Charles Murphy, according to extant video tapes, who confirmed the film was unedited. This means there was no possible time or opportunity to alter the Wiegman film. In fact, comparison of that first broadcast with Groden's version shows there are a few seconds of footage missing from his copy! Furthermore, the former WBAP-TV still has prints of the film dating to 1963. I have video tapes of those prints and they, too, are identical to what was shown at 3pm on November 22, 1963. As for the Bell film, Mark Bell went home with his camera that afternoon and filmed a few scenes outside his Oak Cliff home. They show his wife at the time, his house, and either his mother or hers. After processing of his film, Bell never bothered to inform investigators of his footage. No one knew about it until 1967 when LIFE magazine learned of it and published a few frames. That same year, Josiah Thompson obtained a copy of the film from Bell and Thompson's print is at The Sixth Floor Museum, as is Bell's camera original film. I have examined both. They are identical and there are no splices in either film." I could not agree more with your statement. I think that point was driven home as I debunked all those foolish alteration claims you made in "Hoax". So in the future I would like to cite your statement above each time you repeat the same mistakes. Bill

OK, Jack - how about you offering a clear and precise response for a change. The alleged figure has been said to be on the pedestal (presumably with its arm on Sitzman's hip) when viewed from the Betzner or Wiegman line of sight and in post #176 the figure is alleged to be seen just south of the notch in the wall. Is it your position that this alleged figure is running all over hell in these images or could it be that you guys are confusing the background as a figure and the different angles at which these films and photos have been taken to the knoll have caused the background to shift which you have failed to pick up on so far??? Please be precise and stay on point if you can.

Jack, this response is not to you, Chris, or anyone else who cannot use sensible reasoning when looking at these images and how to cross reference them. This response is for those who do have the ability to follow reasoning. Some guys have been claiming (only recently I might add) that a figure is seen dancing on the pedestal or concrete wall. I say the pedestal because they have misread the images so badly that one moment they will claim the alleged figure is behind Sitzman with his arm on her because of the angle at which Betzner or Wiegman viewed the knoll, only to then say the figure is on the concrete wall when viewed from a different angle that someone like Bell had to the knoll. This alleged figure's location changes only because of the angle over the pedestal or wall that it is being viewed from in each film source. If it was a real figure and not the background - it would remain at the same location no matter which angle it was viewed from. An example of this is Zapruder and Sitzman ... they are seen on the pedestal from each filming location in the Betzner, Willis, Moorman, Nix, Bronson film, and Wiegman film when looking at a good Wiegman print. So if shifting of this alleged figure from one location to another takes place between filming locations, then what is being seen in the background being confused as a figure of someone. The Bronson slide and Moorman photograph should have put that matter to rest and probably has to those who can understand perspective and the need to use the best images over the poorer degraded ones. Now what reliable photographic film source do we have again? Mary Moorman's photo was an instant picture that she had taken at the time of the assassination and had kept in her possession right up until the time that it was filmed for TV not 35 minutes following the shooting of President Kennedy. Mary's photo shows that clearly no one but Zapruder and Sitzman were on the pedestal and absolutely no one is seen standing on the concrete wall. The same goes for the Bronson slide and the Willis color photo. The same will also apply to the Betzner photograph if one does not degrade it to the point that they can imagine figures seen in amongst the grains and pixels. There is a general consistency in the light patterns seen on the shelter wall. Those patterns, depending on from where they are seen - the steadiness of the camera - and the amount of light the camera captured the walkway in, will look differently to a certain extent, but their general shape is noticeable if looked at closely. What I find totally amazing is that the validity of this alleged figure fails on several levels, but even at that ... I would not expect these select few to not get the point on each and every one. I can only suggest that those people who really think that they have found some ground breaking observation - then treat it as if it is important enough to go into the 6th Floor Museum and ask that they be shown a good film copy so to confirm or deny the validity of their observation. If the latter is too much trouble, then the person making the claim doesn't feel that their observation is that reliable in the first place. Bill Miller

You are another one who seems to have a desire to post silly things in an attempt to make CT's look foolish. Feel free to show me this person in the Betzner, Willis, or Moorman photos, not to mention the Nix and Bronson images. I look forward to seeing a reasonable and precise reply for a change instead of a continuing desire to use degraded images in an attempt to make something out of nothing.

Chris, are you not going to explain why it is that what ever you think you see is still present at the same location long after the motorcade has left the area and still in the same posture? I would think that any rational person would want to look at this and address it. I would also think that any rational person would also want to explain why the thing they believe they see in a blurry image isn't present in an image that was validated not 30 minutes following the assassination and while Mary Moorman still had her photograph in her possession. Look at the same area in Moorman's photo and tell me where your alleged person is on the wall? (see below) I ask that you be precise and to the point for if you are not, then I feel that you are merely trying to make CT's look foolish through your postings. Bill

Jack you’ve got your facts wrong (as I’ve come to expect) by your own standards you lied. You labeled Craig, Evan, Steve Ulman and me by name as goons simply for disagreeing with you. I can site similar examples if you wish. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=76596 Also an accessory after the fact is an accessory. At least he honest and "man" enough to own up to your personal attacks on others! Jack is use to just being able to say things without being challeged for he comes from a forum where people who disagreed with him were booted off of it. Jack doesn't get away with it here, so he finds himself out of his comfort zone. Who can forget Jack saying, "You know nothing about movies and movie production if you are not aware of MARY POPPINS, made at the time of the assassination, which was full of award-winning special effects." Jack made that remark in support of undetectable Zfilm alteration capabilities in 1963/64. I invite anyone to go back and look at those Mary Poppins clips and see if what Jack claimed is true. One thing I have learned is that just because Jack states something as fact - it doesn't mean that it is and should always be double checked. Now who besides Jack doesn't see the sole thickness of those shoes on the actors changing between frames? To this day Jack has never admitted that he was wrong pertaining to his remark. More of Jack uh - er - not initiating personal attacks: "Mr. Colby does not know the difference between COMPOSTING and COMPOSITING. Compositing is assembling various photo elements into one, as in faking the Zfilm. Composting is a procedure used to turn organic matter into fertilizer. Ignorance is a weak position from which to argue. Jack " In another post where Jack shows people how easy it is to alter an image - Len Colby pointed out that Jack used a computer that was not possible to use in 1063/64. This is how Jack opened his response ... "Colby demonstrates his ignorance by saying: Jack, did you fake that frame on a computer or with an circa 1963 optical printer?"

Thanks Jack, There were people on the pedestal, just wasn't Z/Sitz. Just to difficult to tell the difference with the photos we had to work with. chris P.S. Included is the original from the Bell movie. I'm sorry I didn't post that first with the other. Chris, you are getting poor Jack's hopes up over something that doesn't exist. While I can appreciate your at least recognizing sunspots on a wall as Zapruder and Sitzman are walking away from the pedestal ... I must point out that Bell filmed those same sunspots for quite some time after the assassination even after the crowds had made their way up the walkway. Even the motorcade has long since left the plaza and the regular street traffic is moving down Elm Street. Many of them later passes Bell made of that same spot are clearer than the image you chose to use so to imply that a woman was standing on the wall. If you guys do not wish to have this forum viewed as one consisting of a bunch of nuts, then try and check your observations out thoroughly by thinking them through before posting them to the forum as factual. Bill

EBC, Feel free to sit all the other better assassination images aside that would be more reliable and play "Where's Waldo" in the poor severely blurred B&W films and photos. I have pointed out the flaws in taking such an approach, but you are entitled to do as you like just as the rest of the research community is entitled to think you are off your rocker. Personally, I have not seen anything like it. To take the approach that some of you do is like choosing to use a dirty window to look through so to make your observations rather than using a clean one. Don't take the criticism personally for I would look just as deservingly silly if I took that approach as well. Bill Bill

Chris, I have two questions that would pertain to this nonsense that you consistently post ... 1) What film or photo source did you use and how long after the assassination was it time stamped in your best guess? 2) What other films or photos have you cross checked it against to see if what you are talking about is even valid?

.................. And her upper body is twisting to her right slightly. In the Lancer archives somewhere there should be some pretty good stabilized images shpowing he sunspots being bent in the Groden images. The title of the thread was under 'Classic Gunman' as I recall. BTW, I hope she isn't running in high heels!

I think the sunspots bend in the same manner. One such place that I didn't mark can be seen directly beow the two red arrows on the right side of the frame. The faint sunspot moves in correlation with the other sunspot ... all occurring about 45 seconds after the shooting.

I think you may be right this time, Jack. As I recall from the email Robert sent me which I have posted on this forum at least twice, I believe he said that you are "ALWAYS WRONG". Bill

John is correct about it being Costella's frame. Besides, Jack ... I thought you were the one who gets more information out of an image by degrading it all to hell. Below is one of your - let's say - er - uh ... enhancements. By eating the heads off the SS Agents ... you were able to see a tripod in the shelter doorway.

We will have to agree to disagree for the truth in my opinion cannot be found by bypassing the better images in order to play "Where's Waldo" in the poorer ones. That is exactly how white shirted muggers that never existed are born. Bill

It seems to me that one has stemmed from the other. So let us ask ourselves this question: If we are allegedlty searching for the truth here, then which of us does the most damage?

The same can be said about your research practices and the results that come from them.

The camera movement has bent the sunspots on the shelter wall between frames. This has given off the illusion of movement. Look to the right of the box in your clip and watch the same thing happen to the illuminated parts of the colonnade.

"there are either people who come to this forums with the intention of making CT's look like complete idiots by taking poor images and playing the 'see what I see game' or there really are complete idiots who post on this forum." There were no less than five angles to the knoll being filmed or photographed during the assassination in which to decide if there were white shirted Sitzman manhandlers on the pedestal and/or wall next to the pedestal, not to mention Zapruder and Sitzman's own statements. I will leave your post as a testimonial to which category your responses fall under.

What other information are you speaking of, Jack? Hill and Moorman doing interviews following the assassination? .... so did Zapruder. Hill, Altgens, and Willis testify they were present at the assassination, but so did Zapruder. You said, "Oliver appears in many photos, but her face is not identifiable", the same can be said about Zapruder except he is identifiable in one of the photos as has been posted concerning Trask's book "National Nightmare". Have you acquired a copy of the book yet, Jack? Bill

Jack, your subtleness is about as obvious as the mistakes you consistently make concerning the photographical record. Bill

Whoa, Mark ... so you don't think it was a ball glove? I thought it was common for older guys to spend their afternoons in the plaza playing baseball, especially on a day the President would be coming through. A baseball glove!!!