Bill Miller

I think John is looking for alterations to the point he is inventing them in his own mind. I have not the time to spend on doing things that were done so many years ago that debunked the alteration nonsense, but here is an example of what he was advised to do if he wanted to know where the limo was in Altgen's photo and/or anywhere else using multiple reference points with other images as well. Below is a Plaza drawing of Elm Street with the lines marking a line of sight from certain landmarks. This is merely an illustration. If someone wishes to be to scale and accurate, then find an aerial photo from above and looking straight down on the plaza as seen at the time of the assassination. This way landmarks such as lamppost, trees, and lane stripes will be just as they were at the time of the shooting which will minimize drastically any degree of error.

I am aware of the 'reveal. Beverly had never seen her film projected and someone had shown her cropped stills from another film (Nix) taken from a similar line of sight to which Bev got suckered on the idea that those stills were from her film. After all, she knew of no one else that was filming on the south pasture that close to the car as she was. The enlarged cropped stills even looked to have been taken from a similar distance from the street as she was ... and she had no idea what had been done to them to give that false impression. Had she contacted Groden or anyone who was familiar with the other assassination films, then they could have easily told her there and then that someone was playing her for a fool. And if you are suggesting to me that she was aware that she was looking at a Nix film frame and intentionally thought she could pass it off as from her film, then I would say that is ridiculous. One would think that even the most cynical minded of people would know that Beverly was obviously not familiar with the other assassination films so to have been wise to the fiasco that was being handed to her. As for the rest of the garbage - someone could have met up with Bev and said they were with the CIA ... after all someone told Officer Joe Marshall Smith that he was with the Secret Service right at the crime scene - had believable credentials as well. Ferrie first said that he didn't know Oswald - a photo of the two together during military training later turned up. Ruby's credibility wasn't worth two shakes of tinkle. There was so much deception going on around the assassination that no one knew who was on who's side - not even the bad guys. Oswald is shot to death in police custody by Jack Ruby and someone thinks a stripper is going to now get involved in that mess by saying they saw Oswald with Jack in his club. Really??? And regardless of who the Babushka Lady was - no one else has come forward and said it was them who was there next to Brehm. He believed it was her. I wanted to make clear was the lady seen in Zapruder film was the same woman seen in the other assassination films.

After Jack was attacked in his home - he said lots of things that were odd when it come to photo interpretations. Jack said Moorman was standing in the street when she took her famous Polaroid - that Zapruder and Sitzman were waltzing on the pedestal in the Bronson slide - and that Toni Foster was 7ft tall .... just to name a few. His claims were debunked to death. The Moorman in the street nonsense was easy to debunk by first knowing the standing height of a DPD motorcycle (58") and applying that against the background of the knoll. I took two 58" tall stands and placed them in the same lane of traffic the cycles are seen riding in and photographed them from 54.5" off the street and again from 54.5" above the curb. The result told the true story. View of 58: stands in the street as photographed from 54.5" off the curb and again from 54.5" atop of the curb to see how the backgrounds line up to the heigth of the bikes windscreens ... A photo 54" off the street would not allow Moorman to see over the tops of the windscreens, but from atop of the curb she could see over them and when her Polariod and my test photos were overlaid - they were a match beyond question. Jack White and Jim Fetzer made numerous trips to the Plaza and couldn't get it right. Of Course they never bothered to find out the standing height of a DPD motorcycle either. The woman in blue is seen with her coat open, thus her blue colored dress is visible in Zapruder's film. She is still wearing a head scarf. From behind - her dress is not visible and we only see her coat and head scarf. As I recall - there was one or two aftermath photos showing her on the knoll side of the street. Jack knew Bev Oliver and believed her story as I did. However, Jack never cared to ask Bev if that was her in Zapruder's film showing a blue dress under her tan overcoat. Bev will tell you it is her. I also want to say that the reflections you see in the limo that seem warped to you is because the side of the car is bowed outward which distorts the reflection. All these things can be tested just they were done when Jack White made his claims. Those reflections being seen from a skewed angle also adds to the distortion. Stand in front of a chrome bumper and see how you and everything behind you looks - then you will know what I am talking about.

Your responses tend to make the reader think that you were not able to understand the information found in Altgens #6 photo so to know he was not in the same spot then as he was later when seen in Zapruder's film. Altgens is obviously standing in the street in Altgen's 6 as the curb is to his right. And we know he is in fact standing because his camera can see over the hood of the approaching limo. So the photo tells us that Ike stepped into the street to take a picture of the slow moving limo approaching his position. He then stepped back out of the street before Zapruder panned far enough to capture Ike in his film frame. For him to not step back would have him in the path of the cycle riding closest to the curb. The location of the limo is easy to determine if you know how to do it. Get an actual overhead aerial view of Elm Street and count the white lane stripes from the corner (5 in total is what I think you want) ... as it looks as though the limo's tire is about 1/4 of the way over the fifth stripe. Use the overhead aerial view and place a line from a point at the middle of the photo that passes over a reference point on the car and beyond - then trace it back to the south knoll on the aerial photo and it will tell you where Ike took his photo in relation to the south pasture. The same can be done with a Zframe. I used Z428. Draw a line over JFK to a point on the wall beyond him. The limo was said to be averaging around 11 inches a frame, so count from 248 to 255 which is 7 frames ... and multiply that by 11" to know how much further the car rolled from 248 to 255. If you do the same with 255 by finding a reference point in the background and draw a line from there back to Zapruder's pedestal on an aerial photo of that area - that would be even easier. At least you can determine where the car was on the street at Z255.

You error in thinking that the shadows should all be pointing the same direction is in your not applying the curve of the street. The witnesses are all facing the curb, but the curb is at a different angle to the sun at the various witness locations. If you have doubs, then by all means go out on a street that bends - do it on a sunny day - and note how the universe paints your shadow in relation to the curb at various locations in the bend.

The woman you are talking about (Bev Oliver) is seen in the Marie Muchmore film.

Why does it have to be a building and not another structure like the column near where Croft took his photo. Better yet - why not get a photo an overhead view of the street and find where the limo was at Altgen's 6 and where Ike Altgens stood and draw a line from he to the window on the overhead view and then a second line (of an equal angle of reflection) and let it let it show you where it goes. Seems like that would make more sense than jumping to some silly idea that there was a shade over the glass in one photo that no other camera couldn't see. It just seems to be a responsible approach to check for the obvious before claiming someone altered a photo by putting a shade over the window.

You could not be more correct in your assessment, Ray. I reflection off the glass is spot-on!

That is usually the case when someone like John in this instance cannot address the information they have been given.

Do I understand your response to infer that it is your intention not to be right - but just to claim the photographs and films are fakes regardless of the facts. If that is the case, then you are not doing anyone a favor in my view. If you look at the Bronson photo - you will note that Beverly Oliver (BL) has more grass ahead of her feet than Brehm which supports her being further from the street than Charles was. This is also true in the Mucmore film and Zapruder film. About these peoples shadows - what rational reason could you offer as to why someone would alter their shadows because I can't think of one. The Muchmore film - the Nix film - the Zapruder film - the Altgens 6 photo - and the Bronson photo all match each other concerning these witnesses location. Even the witnesses have no issues as to how their location is shown in any of these films or photos. So could it be that it is you who is not reading them correctly?

Why do you say the VP's car is warped .... are you looking at the reflection in its paint and attributing that to the car being warped? Might as well try and help you understand some other things that seem to mystify you while here on this page ..... 1 - The Thorton sign is behind and back towards Zapruder just enough that Altgen's camera did not capture it. Don't forget how close the people looked to each other when photographed from up or down the street at an angle when in reality they were spaced further apart as seen in the Bronson photo posted below. 2 - There is no mystery concerning Hill and Moorman's shadows. These things were put to rest many years ago when it was shown that Altgen's took his film to the Dallas Morning News and it was processed and out on the news wire with an hour or so. Jean Hill was standing back from the street while Mary was right next to the curb. Between Jean and the curb is a slope. Go back and look at one of the good Muchmore frames and you will see Jean Hills shoes atop of the ground while Mary's is hidden below the slope. That is precisely why Moorman's shadow extends out into the street further than Jean Hill's. No need to be painting shadows on the street - all one needs is to be aware of where these women stood in relation to the curb.

Considering that Zapruder kept in his possession the first generation copy made within hours of the shooting - it took altering the film off the table right out of the gate. As in the case of Altgen's 6 - Ike kept his film with him until handing it off to be processed and within the hour it was seen on the AP wire if I remember correctly. In 1963, they didn't have computers like we do today where manipulations can be done in short order. The alterations would have called for lab time and working with film the old fashion way. 8MM and 35MM have different film grain patterns, so any two mixing of the patterns would be detected by an expert. And because Kodachrome II color film was created for outdoor exposure and my research has told me that exposure with real sunlight vs artificial gives tow different distinct appearances. I shared the Life original image to the MPI version to demonstrate the difference.

Paul, I understand what you are saying and agree. I also get the DPD didn't have a tape recorder for reasons they had given, but the killing of JFK was a special circumstance and with the importance of making a solid case and the claim of being concerned of Oswald's rights ... I am troubled that they didn't bother to obtain one. I am equally puzzled as to why if Oswald really wanted a particular person to represent him or not - Lee seemed to be a smart enough of an individual to know he could refuse to answer questions before his attorney could be obtained. In fact, any attorney could have seen that Lee's rights were not violated until Attorney Apt could be located and obtained. And maybe Lee did refuse to wait and freely wanted to talk to the police which some of his claimed responses does support this scenario - this is all the more reason the questioning should have been audio recorded. I find the excuse of the DPD not obtaining a tape recorder so to have an audio record of Lee's interviews to be quite mind-boggling.

I was part of those Lancer discussions and as David Von Pein mentions - there was no time to alter Altgens photographs as they were being developed with an hour of the assassination. That is not to say that Newspapers didn't retouch photos because they did, which has nothing to do with the original film image. Those like Jack White who were always claiming altered images like with the Zapruder film seemed to overlook the processes for how that would have needed to be done. As was demonstrated on the old Lancer forum at the time - film stock has grains that can be seen in the image under high magnification. Those grains are sharp around their edges. To alter a Zapruder frame for instance - an enlargement of the frame would need to be created because an actual 8MM film frame would be so small that it would take a microscope just to see the small area one would want to alter. So a 35MM enlargement would then be made and printed out. 35MM film stock as a different film grain appearance than that of 8MM. Once an image is enlarged ... the film grains would also become slightly out of focus along their edges. Someone would then need to hand paint over the image so to manipulate whatever appearance they were wanting to give to the original image. Once completed - the 35MM image would have to be reduced back to an 8MM size and inserted into the film in place of the original image. Enlarging image lessens clarity - reducing the image back to the smaller size again brings the lack of clarity with it. And expert would easily be able to spot the film grain pattern and clarity difference in that one altered frame compared to the frames both before and after the manipulation. The film grains in the altered image would be fuzzy around their edges with the grains in the prior frames and post frames would be clear and sharp around their edges, And the manipulated alteration itself would have been applied/painted over the original film grains, which also would be detectable under high magnification. So while it is easy to just say an original image must have been altered - the process in attempting it will show tell-tale signs that the deed has been done. One last thing I discovered was that the altered image that was created in a lab with artificial light would not match the lighting of the original image that was exposed in natural sunlight. The long and the short of it is that such fakery would be easily spotted by professionals based on certain give-a-ways previously mentioned. So while copies of a photo can be retouched and used in a newspaper or magazine ... altering the original image in 1963 and it being undetectable was another matter. Zapruder frame comparison - Original image exposed in sunlight Vs the same exposed in artificial light

Paul, I have always found it troubling that a tape recorder wasn't obtained so to have an audio record of the suspect's responses. I understand that it may not have been customary or standard procedure at that time, but certainly they must have realized that in the murder of a U.S. President that they would not want to leave any doubt as to what the suspect may or may not have said. After all I believe it was referenced that they wanted to be sure that Oswald's rights were being protected and yet they left themselves with little more than hearsay to rely on concerning his questioning and Lee's responses had there been a trial. I mean - what if Lee had confessed - who in their right mind would not want it recorded for future reference. One might say that they had written out what he had said and had him sign it, but then there would still be an argument that could be made that Lee was forced to sign a confession. Yet an audio recording could better establish if the witness sounded stressed or was being coerced in any of his responses. I just find it mind-boggling that no one spoke up and recommended that his interrogation be recorded on tape .... it wouldn't have taken minutes to have had someone purchase and tape recorder if nothing else.

I see them being a lighter color in the PM image as someone pointed out earlier - like a workers uniform. The top being the same tone as the pants.

I am the same person - only difference now is that I am a 3X cancer survivor.

David, Please try to post more accurately by saying "Some CTers ..... " and not making it look as though "all" CTers think the same when in the case mentioned above - it is simply not accurate.

Your points are well taken, Lance. John didn't mention that the closest witnesses to the SE snipers lair (the three black men on the 5th floor) said the shots seem to have come from directly above their position. Robert Groden told me that during the filming of the movie "JFK" that more than 21 test firings were done from different locations and at the same time. Robert went on to say that depending on where these witnesses stood determined from where they believed the shots had come from. Someone at one location may not have heard shots that someone else did and visa versa. I just wanted to mention this so John would now be aware of it.

John, With all due respect - you are grossly mis-reading these images. The reason the Babushka lady's coat is flaring and Mary's is not is due to the way one woman is turned in conjunction with the direction the wind gust is blowing at that moment. Your next comment I do not understand for Moorman isn't seen in her Polaroid for anyone to make a comparison of how her lower coat is seen against the level of her knees. The shadows are angled differently on the south pasture Vs the knoll because the the knoll is a sloped parcel of ground - the pasture is not. Go outside on a sunny day and compare how your shadow looks when on a level piece of ground Vs how it looks on a hillside and it will all make sense to you. The boy (little Joe Brehm) is standing in his father's shadow which makes him look so dark. The man across the street is stepping up on the curb - so his leg is bent and not sunken into the asphalt.

John, I started reading this thread after reading the last several post - first and then going back to post number one and going from there. I am stopping here as you have too many errors in your accounting of what occurred for me to waste a lot of time on it. I will however address a few of your observations. Howard Brennan was across the street from the alleged snipers window which is at the SE corner of the TSBD. The SW corner of the building was across the street from Charles Brehm. So in actuality, Jean Hill was across the street from the SW portion of TSBD. It takes one to start splitting hairs to find fault with the description of Jean Hill being across the street from the TSBD. And with Jean Hill's location being seen in no less than four film and/or photo sources .... there is no doubt where Jean stood. The only variances concerning Jean's location are derived from the interpretations pertaining to the wording used. Robin has demonstrated with Muchmore's film that Jean Hill looked towards the President at the time of the fatal shot. Jean's head turn is also seen occurring between Z307 - Z309 as well, thus allowing her to possibly observe any muzzle flash and/or movement seen at the fence. I can only advise that when listening to witnesses describing what they recall - try to give a little leeway as any two people can witness the same event and remember it differently. For instance, Jean said that she saw the President grab his chest - when her interview was filmed .... she crossed her arms in front of her which isn't really grabbing ones chest. And Jean wasn't the only one who thought this was what the President had done while others interpreted JFK as clutching his throat .... when he actually had brought his hands up to his mouth as if you cough like if to dislodge something in his throat. In times of sudden shock or surprise - our minds minds-record that recorded the event will then over time attempt to analyze what we remembered seeing by filling in the blanks which that too can cause us to morph our recollection of an event. Elsewhere you mentioned Jack White's 'mannequin' observation with some of the witnesses. I recall posting a stabilized view of those women and they were moving .... Jack just didn't look hard enough. That was a claim he made later on in his research when he was claiming everything was altered and grabbing onto any word or phrase that he could find to support the theory and stopping there. In that case - a still image doesn't allow one to see movement like an actual film clip will do.

Yet there were so many witnesses who either didn't know what was happening to other witnesses or they didn't care for they stood by the shots coming from the area of the RR yard and/or the knoll.

Unless a clear film or photo image of that entrance way - no one will ever ID Prayer Man. The one thing I mentioned in an earlier post that there was one person who recalled what Oswald was wearing on 11/22/63 and they described him as having dark or black pants. I do not see any evidence of Prayer Man having on dark or black pants.

I thought the "conspiracy" question was resolved long ago when the medical personnel said that the wounds in the autopsy photographs was not the condition of the President's head at the time of the shooting - when more than one person was said to have been seen on the 6th floor - just prior and after the shooting - and was later stated to be the findings of the HSCA. So to answer Claude's question - I do not believe Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/63 and may have been the source for the warning of an assassination attempt on JFK's life. But what I do not know is whether Oswald was involved in some other capacity.