Bill Miller

You are joking - right? You can't just take two different pictures of someone taken from different angles and distances from the camera and overlay them on top of one another and expect to have a meaningful overlay example. Unbelievable!

Shanet - having you analyzing a film is like watching a baby to play with a loaded gun ... its just a matter of time b efore 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

Zapruder is slightly leaning his upper body to one side (his right) in the Betzner photo. The solid lines represent the pitch of his hat and arms. The dotted lines show the height of his right shoulder and the top of his hat in relation to Sitzman. The heights are consistant with those seen in Altgens 8 IMO. The scaling you did in post #7 was not accurate.

Chris, if your intention is to make yourself look foolish, then you are doing a bang-up job at it. Is your next contention going to be that yet another person was on the pedestal, which brings your total up to four now and somehow two jumped off before Bronson and Nix started filming? You are aware - aren't you - that Bronson took his photo less than 2 seconds after Willis took his.

It's OK, Frank ... it was going to hell in a hand basket the minute someone started seeing muggers on the pedestal in a severly blurred film.

Jack, the "oxhockey" will cease the day that the forum software stops taking your text just as it couldn't stomach any more of your pictures. Dorman was so far off to the side of Houston Street that her location didn't allow for one to see that the shadows of the vehicles on Houston Street run to the north and to the east. The compilation of photos in post # 149 show that the southwest sides of the concrete wall and the shelter are all illuminated with direct sunlight and the sides facing the corner of Elm and Houston Streets are in shade. Your remark about the main light in DP being the sun .... what other light could there have been other than the sun? It's just like Groden said when he commented that you are most always wrong in every case. You don't understand angles and you have been one of the worst in recent times at reading images. It's been 43 years since the assassination and your statement that everyone has been wrong as to the location of the sun and you are right mirrors only what you have said about your nutty alteration claims. It seems only right that if Craig is to be called "Mr. Light", then you have certainly earned the title of "Mr. Wrong".

Are you sure that Altgens isn't saying that he didn't take another photo of the motorcade? You see, there are images of Altgens on the north side of the street at the time his number 8 photo would have been taken. That photo is on his roll of film, so what does that tell us? By the way, doesn't anyone have Trask's book "That Day in Dallas"? I am certain that there are a couple of good large photos in that book showing women in heels on the knoll. Women who went to work with them on and who were caught up in the moment of the assassination are not going to even think about their shoes when moving in and around the knoll. Just like the woman in the photo Mark posted ... that woman had just come across the south pasture to get to Elm Street.

If it was posted on Lancer, then it is par for the course for their archives is full of lost images. I am in the process of moving and most of my materials are boxed up and in storage. I will eventually find the photo and post it. I don't bet on anything unless I know what the next card is ... that you can bet on. I think more accurately that Altgens couldn't recall taking that photo for his photos were taken from him and rushed to be developed. However, as I believe "Pictures of the Pain" shows ... Number 8 followed number 7 on Altgens roll of film, thus he damned sure took the photo. I also noticed that when I downloaded the Paschall film from the Internet - Zapruder hopping off the pedestal is observable and when he hit the ground he kept right on walking East and Sitzman turns towards the shelter. Sitzman is more than an inch taller than Zapruder, thus her heels made her that way ... one can guess as to how many inches were needed on her heels to accomplish this. Like I said before, her stance in the Betzner photo shows her to have her arches elevated. The image Mark posted of her on the concrete also shows those heels at work. Her height against Zapruder is also telling. And if you can find someone with access to Trask book "That Day in Dallas" - there will be a few clear photos showing women on the knoll who were indeed wearing high heels ... I guess they didn't think like you. Many women were office workers and dressed as such. They left for the plaza to see the President in what ever shoes they had on at work. The photos show this regardless of what you say. It happens when you are in the middle of a move. I have also posted those images in the past when discussing this issue.

Houston Street does NOT run north-south. It runs north-northeast a few degrees, which counteracts the sun's location and makes shadows on Houston run parallel with the street. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.html U.S. Naval Observatory Washington, DC 20392-5420 DALLAS, TEXAS o , o , W 96 47, N32 47 Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun Nov 22, 1963 Central Standard Time Altitude Azimuth (E of N) h m o o 06:10 -11.3 106.7 06:20 -9.3 107.9 06:30 -7.3 109.2 06:40 -5.4 110.4 06:50 -3.4 111.7 07:00 -1.5 113.0 07:10 0.9 114.4 07:20 2.6 115.8 07:30 4.4 117.2 07:40 6.2 118.6 07:50 8.0 120.1 08:00 9.8 121.6 08:10 11.6 123.2 08:20 13.3 124.8 08:30 15.0 126.5 08:40 16.7 128.2 08:50 18.3 130.0 09:00 19.9 131.8 09:10 21.4 133.7 09:20 22.9 135.6 09:30 24.4 137.7 09:40 25.7 139.7 09:50 27.1 141.9 10:00 28.3 144.1 10:10 29.5 146.5 10:20 30.6 148.8 10:30 31.7 151.3 10:40 32.7 153.8 10:50 33.5 156.4 11:00 34.3 159.1 11:10 35.0 161.8 11:20 35.6 164.6 11:30 36.1 167.4 11:40 36.5 170.3 11:50 36.8 173.2 12:00 37.0 176.1 12:10 37.1 179.0 12:20 37.1 182.0 12:30 37.0 184.9 12:40 36.7 187.8 12:50 36.4 190.7 13:00 36.0 193.6 13:10 35.4 196.4 13:20 34.8 199.2 13:30 34.0 201.9 13:40 33.2 204.5 13:50 32.3 207.1 14:00 31.3 209.6 14:10 30.2 212.0 14:20 29.1 214.3 14:30 27.9 216.6 14:40 26.6 218.8 14:50 25.2 221.0 15:00 23.8 223.0 15:10 22.4 225.0 15:20 20.8 227.0 15:30 19.3 228.8 15:40 17.7 230.6 15:50 16.1 232.4 16:00 14.4 234.1 16:10 12.7 235.7 16:20 10.9 237.3 16:30 9.2 238.8 16:40 7.4 240.4 16:50 5.6 241.8 17:00 3.7 243.2 17:10 2.0 244.6 17:20 0.3 246.0 17:30 -2.2 247.3 17:40 -4.1 248.6 17:50 -6.1 249.9 18:00 -8.1 251.2 18:10 -10.1 252.4

Actually - the lower the sun is in the sky - the longer the shadow it will cast as well. If directly overhead - I giraffe will hardly cast a shadow. At that time of the year (November) - the sun crosses the sky in a low path and not directly overhead as some might imagine. And yes - the sun was in the SW, unless of course you are Jack White who lives in a make believe world. Obviously understanding the sun's position and the shadows it creates are not one of Jack's strong points. If they were, then he would have noticed Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the grass in Altgens 6 while he was trying to make a case for them being in the street at the same time. Bill

The sun was in the Southwest. The peoples shadows on the ground point to the Northeast. The Bronson slide shows the side lighting, but it is not so descernable in photos taken from the corner of Elm and Houston Streets because it is Zapruder's right side that was sunlit - not the front of him from Wiegman's angle of view.

No Alan, your definition of detail increasing is simply a process of turning up the contrast of an image. As far as you not knowing where Groden got his prints, then you should have asked him for you have been invited to contact him countless times in order to address what ever questions you may have had. As far as what I wrote ... I typed as Groden was answering my questions over the phone. Your ignorance of this whole affair has been due to your lack of understanding of how the lithographic process worked in making that enlarged version of he Betzner image. The fact is that you still do not see that an image with less infromation cannot be closer to the original. In other words, if I take a picture of someone and I run a process that maybe makes their outline look sharper, but removed the tips of their ears or maybe the top of their head is removed in the process, then the end result however more pleasing to the eye is not the closest thing to the original. To date - you have been the only person who seems to not get it. It's not been because you were not made aware of it - its just that you do not wish to get it and I find that to be your problem alone. Bill Miller

Jack, Number one is the closest thing to reality that you have spoke about in years. You left off just a few words that would have made it more accurate .... 1) Zapruder and Sitzman were on the pedestal in bright sun, but unlike other photos were invisible to a frantically running Wiegman in most of his frames due to motion blur on a film with limited color tones. Now Jack ... you seem to have no trouble shagging-ass down to the plaza to conduct some of the most poorly thought out studies concerning where Moorman stood or how Toni Foster looked to be 7 feet tall from an elevated perch above the plaza, so why haven't you gone in and allowed Mack to show you his higher quality Wiegman film? You've been babblling on about no one being on that pedestal in Wiegman for years now and yet I have not once seen where you mentioned going to look at a better print so to see if what you had been saying was indeed accurate ... so why is that???

Duncan, I could not have said it any better. Your understanding of angles and the cross referencing of photos has certainly come a long way. Bill

You guys are certainly showing one thing out of all this .... 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. Do yourselves a favor and take a trip to the 6th floor Musuem and look at the film there. You cannot take back the silliness you have shown so far, but you can prevent calling an opening through the tree foliaqe a mugger so not to make fools out of yourselves to future researchers. Until then, just where do you fellas propose that this alleged white shirted mugger came from? He is not seen on the pedestal with Zapruder and Sitzman in the assassination films and photos ... are you guys even aware that Wiegman started filming before Zapruder had stopped filming? So in those few seconds ... where do you think the mugger/dancer/Sitzman fan/ etc., came from if it is not the sky seen through the tree foliage?

Let me quote what I said, "Only now that I have shown you that Sitzman and Zapruder are on the pedestal in some of the Wiegman frames". I have however, posted at some point the Wiegman frame showing Sitzman's legs over the side of the pedestal. I have also said that I have observed far superior frames on the 6th Floor Museums film than what you are using. The Museum will not give me their materials to post. I tell researchers to go there and look through the vast amount of high resolution images they have on file and if they do, then they would understand why using these sorry-assed blurred images that allow people like yourself to see muggers on the pedestal behind Sitzman is a waste of time. Only a fool would say that. Only a fool would not understand that if the good prints don't show such a person and it takes a blurry image to accomplish seeing something, then you have no business even doing photo interpretations. Bill

Has anyone noticed yet that in a good print of Altgens #8 that you can see a potion of Zapruder's glasses? The same goes for the lightened shelter interior view in Trask's book "National Nightmare". Bill

Jack, would you like for me to go back and start putting up the things you have said about NO ONE BEING ON THE PEDESTAL? That's right ... using those blurry frames was the holy grail for you to suggest that all the assassination images showing Zapruder and Sitzman are altered. Only now that I have shown you that Sitzman and Zapruder are on the pedestal in some of the Wiegman frames - the first thing that comes out of your mouth is that some one altered the Wiegman frames to make them appear. In other words - your solution for not being accurate is to merely claim everything is altered. It is for that very reason that Groden tells people that you have brought more harm to the research community with your ridiculous claims. Bill Miller

The photo crop you posted is not of good quality and surely not the one that I remember being posted before which brought the Sitzman not wearing heels nonsense to a dead stop. It was either on this forum or Lancer's that someone posted a good capture of the same crop ... I have been looking for it with no success so far. It is the Paschall film that shows Zapruder hopping off of the pedestal and starting to walk away. The Bell film shows Zapruder walking away from Sitzman. Altgens 8 shows Sitzman and Zapruder just as Abe had gotten off the pedestal. (see below) So here is what happens when you cross reference the films ... Groden's copy is very dark, but Mark Oakes has a copy of Paschall's film made directly from the original. In the good copy - Sitzman is already standing next to the pedestal as Zapruder hops off and immediately starts walking away. Altgens takes his photo #8 just as Zapruder hit the ground and before Abe starts walking away ... his right foot is in the process of taking his first step. The Bell film picks up as Zapruder is walking away from Sitzman. Also, look at Altgens #8 and note how tall Sitzman is compared to Zapruder. The Wiegman frames showing Sitzman's legs is on the high resolution scans at the Museum. I do not have access to those scans, but have sat in the basement at the 6th Floor with Gary Mack and viewed them. Anyone can make an appointment and go see them if they like - its free!

Most of us who have seen your studies consider your not being able to post more ridiculous claims as an act of God. Bill Miller

In this still of Sitzman, she looks like she's either standing on her tiptoes or is wearing high heels. Mark - you are wasting your time with people like Bernice. She should have seen the elevated arches of Sitzman in the Betzner photo, but couldn't. She then posted a poor resolution image of Sitzman near the corner of the TSBD in such a way that she washed out a good amount of detail showing Sitzman in her high heels. Yes - Jack has taught her well! When I get time I will search the good scan that I believe that Robin once posted of the same picture from Trask book "Pictures of the Pain". Then she can claim the photos were altered to hide Sitzman's flats. Bill

First Jack has been claiming that no one is on the pedestal and now you (Chris) have Sitzman getting manhandled by a third person. The research community has now been taken to a new low - congratulations! Bill

I thought the remark about people being followers of mine was asinine then and I feel the same way about it now. People there followed the evidence presented in the post - not the person making the post. And now just because Duncan has agreed with me on the BDM issue ... should Alan say that Duncan is in cahoots with me? I am glad to see that Duncan has reevaluated the evidence of the case regardless of what his prior conclusions were ... it shows character. What doesn't show much character IMO is Alan pointing out old flawed presumptions and using those practices to try and work them into Duncan's stance on the BDM figure. It only shows the weakness of Alan's position. I too, spend a fair part of the year living in Harrison Hot Springs, BC and I agree with Duncan on the people I have met in Canada. The border guards are not as friendly as the rest of the population, but that may be the stress of their jobs catchiung up with them at time. So because I agree with Duncan about the friendliness of the people of Canada - I guess we must be in cahoots. Bill

Alan, as always you do not have the facts straight. Groden had a friend named Richard E Sprague who was contracted to do some work for Life Magazine. (Richard E. Sprague should not be confused with Richard A. Sprague who worked with the HSCA) Sprague got Groden a print made directly from the original negative Life Magazine had. The difference between Robert's sharp print and the one in Life Magazine is that the Life Magazine image went through a lithographic process which makes the dots that erroded the points (the dog ears) from the Betzner photo when it was placed into a Magazine. Robert also said that he is sure that he obtained prints when with the HSCA that were made from the negative, but regardless ... he says the same thing as I - as Mack - and anyone else with a lick of sense and that is you CANNOT get more information out of a photo than what is already there. In other words - if your magaizine print has the dog ears eaten away ... there is no way to get them back. What you need to do is acquire a print made from the negative that had not been degraded by way of a lithographic process. Of course, if you do that, then your fedora nonsense is shot in the ass. Bill Miller