Bill Miller

Like Groden has said, "Jack is almost always wrong". This is information I obtained from Gary Mack, "Jack's information is inaccurate. The original Bronson slide is only a little underexposed, but it is much brighter than Jack's very dark copies. The version on Trask's POTP is much closer to the original than anything Jack has shown. Furthermore, the FBI NEVER had possession of the Bronson slides or movies. Two FBI agents viewed them WITH Bronson at Kodak on Monday afternoon, 11/25, then Bronson went home with the pictures. Until Earl Golz and I visited him on November 9, 1978, no one outside of Bronson's family had ever seen them and they were never out of his possession." Bill Miller

No apology coming from me, but I will show the forum some more of your (Jack) examples of how you do not attack people .... Jack: "O'Reilly is an asshole jerk who never served in the military, while Fetzer was a Marine Corps officer in Vietnam." Jack commenting on a forum members looks: "You are right, Shanet. A makeover would do wonders for his self-esteem." Read this thread ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=ignorant A forum member says, "Jack is quite mistaken there are numerous photos of the WFC Winter Garden post 9/11." Jack responds: "Thanks, horsesasses! How kind of you." Anyone wish to see more of Jack never attacking anyone and only offering facts??? Jack: "Colby and Ulman are oblivious to the fact that their postings portray them to everyone as first class horses asses. " How about Len quoting some of the things Jack has said to members which he calls 'not attacking anyone but rather only citing facts' .... Len writes: You know Jack if you tended to be gracious when your "opponents" made mistakes (or when you thought they had) you might have some what of a point but in such situations you tend to use expressions like "ignorant", "fool" and "meaningless mass of xxxx". In other words you have fewer legs to stand on than a quadruple amputee. You are highly provocative do you remember: -all those threads you started insinuating that Bill Miller was really somebody else or -all the ones you started asking about Gary Mack's status, or -all those 'stupid provocateur' ones, or -the idiotic thread you started insinuating I was some sort of Brazilian secret agent, or -the one where you called Evan a xxxx because he correctly cited your position that the Moon landings were faked, or -the time you accused a few other members of the forum and me of being accessories after the fact to the JFK assassination? Bill Miller

Jack, you have the reasoning power of a solar powered battery on a cloudy day! Sitzman is in the shadow of Zapruder you babbbling senile twit. This has been pointed out many times. It's funny how when it comes to the BDM that you claim he has been altered to hide his identity and when the same sort of exposure happens to Sitzman due to the distance from the subject to the camera in relation to the sun's location as seen in Bronson's images ... you say Sitzman is in a black dress. I know of know other person who knows anything about film or photography that supports the silly things you proclaim. The hell you say, Jack! Would you like for me to find post you made where you said someone was "ignorant" and made no mention of facts? Bill Miller PS; Jack you double talk so much - I don't think that you know when you are doing it. Below is yet another example of you doing it .... Mr. Lamson clearly has never been exposed to LOGICAL THINKING. Apollo photographs are FAKED, therefore the RECORD of the photography is FAKED. It would be stupid to say the Apollo Surface Journal is genuine since the photos are NOT. It is logical to consider the written record fiction since it is written about imaginary events which did not take place. Jack Contradition: That is a lie. I have never said the landings were faked. I have always said THE PHOTOS ARE FAKED. That is why Burton has zero credibility. Jack

The single most shameful and contemptible post I've yet seen on an assassination website. _______________________________ Paul, I agree. --Thomas _______________________________ What a bunch of candy-asses. Can anyone say if Jack has even ever had a stroke? I am not aware that he has. This isn't like looking at a handicapped person and making fun of them. I implied that he must have had several strokes to screw up his thinking so that every goddamned thing he sees is altered. Someone tell me then if saying Jack must be ignorant - or Jack must be retarded - or Jack must be involved with JFK's murder would be as bad ... these are things he has said about others, so where was the bleeding hearted whine asses then? I personally would much rather be said to have 'stroked out' as a form of expression to say that my photo interpretation ability sucks Vs. being said to have been involved in the assassination. There certainly seems to be a double standard at play here.

The same can be said about the Zapruder film showing Jean Hill, Mary Moorman, James Altgens, Charles Brehm, Bev Oliver, Phil Willis, Hugh Betzner, Rosemary Willis, and the list goes on.

In response to Baghdad Bob Jack White's remarks: "The provocateurs make much of the "harmony" of all the other movies with Zapruder. Maybe they forgot to look at Z380 and N90, which are "officially" at the same instant. Please explain the "harmony" of these two frames. Only facts, please. No personal attacks, please. If these frames do not match, please post the Z frame which matches N90. Failure to meet this challenge proves the provocateurs DO NOT HAVE A CLUE and are only here to PROVOKE. Have fun. Jack " Reply: There is one problem with Jack's claim that is worth noting before doing anything else .... Jack used the MPI Z380 and didn't account for MPI's misnumbering of the frames. Below is the MPI frame Jack used against the correct frame created by Costella. It was Gary Mack who pointed out MPI's numbering mistake long ago and I assume that Jack was aware of it, but simply had forgotten about it. I would however, recommend to Jack that before making any more alteration claims that he at least makes sure that his information is correct before starting! Another time Jack didn't resort to personal attacks: Jack said, "Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made! It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME! Nobody but a dunce would think that!" Here is yet another post by Jack that didn't deal with any facts as he claims that he always does. Instead, Jack tried to mae a case for Craig being able to post at the times that he does. Jack: "Duane...I have dealt with dozens of good pro photographers, and most of them were extremely busy with photo shoots. Check the times of Lamson's postings...all day long...he must have no clients at all...just sits around posting infantile crap on this forum. A successful photographer is usually in great demand, but he has no work apparently. But he must have an income from some source. Maybe he gets residual pay for taking those Apollo studio shots. Many of them are so good they went undetected for years. Good lighting (for studio work)." Jack " There are many more ... how much overkill do you want to see, Jack?

Jack, you call people defenders of the WC who do not defend the WC report and believe there was a conspiracy in JFK's murder. Not everything in the WCR is in error, but you and a few others have taken on the mindset that anyone who doesn't agree with one of your stuid unsupported claims must be a WCR supporter. One could easily say that someone like yourself who continually makes ridiculous unfounded claims is a WCR supporter for you make it appear that all CT's are insane. Once again I am going to show you to be a double talking ignorant man, Jack. I will personally take the time to start compiling post where you came right out calling people names. Hell, in one instance you started a thread by saying that the anti-alterationist had been quiet, thus they must agree with your garbage. I'll find it and post it just to show who the Godfather of Goon's really is. This is a Jack White lie and I will prove it, which will not be hard seeing how it has come up more than once on this forum.

It is one thing to believe the films and photos are altered, but making moronic errered observations by way of the poorer quailty images to choose from makes you look incompetent. For instance, what kind of ridiculous statement was that you made about proving what colored dress Sitzman wore in the Bronson slide which shows the woman in deep shadow due to the angle at which she was photographed in relation to the sun? Do you know that you can take a photo of the same person from the same location with two cameras and have their clothing to appear to be different colors just because of the difference in film stock that they used? Let me offer a proof of alteration using your logic ... In sunlight the limo is blue, but in shadow while passing through the underpass it is black ... this must mean the film has been altered! How more silly can one be about it!

Bernice, assuming too much is what gets people into trouble. My copy of Trask book is at my other place in Canada, so I didn't have it so to look for the images. Besides, the images looked to be too good to be scans from Trask book ... I was thinking that the stills came from a film which would show more of Sitzman. Bill

Duncan, the Bell film shows Zapruder from head to foot as he walks away from the pedestal ... if that helps. Bill

Oh yeah ... forget that one arm is twice as long in one photo as in the other - Chris says that measuring is silly, so it must be. That's like a capenter telling you that he made two book cases the same size for your den, but don't worry that one is 40 to 50 percent taller then the other ... that's just a silly measuring glitch.

Jack, you can find your remarks in the looney forum archive if DellaRosa hasn't deleted the thread pertaining to it. Also, who gives a rats behind whether you wear glasses or not while taking photos? Most of your pictures show you without glasses, so your vision must not be impared to the extent of others who do wear glasses when filming. (Dave Powers seen below)

Bernice, I was kind enough to point out Sitzman's purse to you in each of the three photos below, so how about you being kind enough to post the larger image with the two white arrows on it - one pointing to Sitzman. And do it without cropping over her shoes! I would love to see those flats you said she wore. Bill

The single most shameful and contemptible post I've yet seen on an assassination website. Paul, what it means is that Jack didn't look at the Bronson slide and start misreading it 30 to 40 years ago. All this started when he went on some sort of 'alteration witch hunt'. I also see that Chris is following suit. What kind of joker looks at Sitzman in deep shadow and says that she is now wearing a different colored dress than what she wore in the Zapruder film before the motorcades arrival? We are consistently seeing a few people who are asking things like why can't we see something in a poor image that we see in a good one ... well dah!!!

The photos may be cropped to the same size, but the people seen on them are not scaled accordingly.

Shanet, you misinterpreting what was seen on the frames between Z316 and Z317 was the first thing that I commented on. If you want more, then go look throughout other head turns prior to Z320 all the way back to Love Field and see how many frames it took for them to be accomplished. If one finds that there is a common ground among other head turns in the same amount of time it took Greer to make his, then your just saying it is too fast is just an opinion without the support of the other available evidence to the contrary. Bill

The hell you say! Your scaling is do goddamned far off that you have different lengths between images between Zapruder's elbows to his shoulders and also from his waist to his shoulders. Now do I need to point out some more obvious flaws or do you wish to admit that you showed us nothing - AS USUAL!

I don't agree with anything Posner says, but to be anti-Posner doesn't mean that one has to be foolish either. You have several photo and film sources to cross check your so-called bonafide research observations with so to know if anyone besides Zapruder and Sitzman were on the pedestal. Instead you choose to create false images out of a B&W blurry film. Just so you know - it is your alleged bonafide research practices that makes you Posner's best friend.

Costella is also someone who thought Moorman was in the street ... didn't see how you had failed in your recreation photo to match the gap that Moorman's photo had, and also suspected that the rain sensors in Dealey Plaza were listening devices.

Chris, I didn't say that you tried to decieve anyone, but rather you didn't scale your images correctly which is more of a sign of incompetence than deception. Bill

Jack, by noon time you can't even recall what you had for breakfast. I quoted no one, but rather stated a position that you and some of the alteration looney's shared on JFK Research. It was at that time that someone rebutted you by posting a photo of Zapruder using his camera and another of Dave Powers filming with his and both men were wearing their glasses. I might also add that no one said that all photographers wear galsses when taking pictures ... just the ones who cannot see well without them.

Todays mystery: The assassination occurred on 11/22/63 ... what year was it that Jack started seeing a waltzing Sitzman and how many strokes did he have to get to that point?

I remember White, Fetzer, and some other masterminds all talking once about how no one films with their glases on. Not only did Zapruder film with his glasses on, but I believe that Trask's book "POTP" shows Dave Powers doing the same. In fact, most people who see blurred images without their glasses on must look through a lens while wearing their glasses.

At least the claims where some dunce said he saw a man in a white shirt on the pedestal with Sitzman are invalid. No, it is light through the trees - it always was light through the trees. If you could do that, then there would have been no silly post made about a third or fourth person on the pedestal. And yes, one can cross reference photos, but your Zapruder was not scaled correctly vertically.

Shanet - having you analyzing a film is like letting a baby play with a loaded gun ... its just a matter of time before it goes off and someone gets hurt. Greer started turning his head forward before Z319. Also, are you aware that the limo passing across Zapruder's field of view in a left to right direction exaggerates any head turns because of the limo's rotation? Watch the two side glasses shift between two frames. Also, watch Connally's head turn in those two frames, as well. And while you are at it - explain to us how Z317 is severely blurred? Bill Miller