Bill Miller

Let me remind you of one vital point, David, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but one wouldn't be going after the NARA to produce the film for they are only storing it. It would be the Zapruder family who would be held accountable to the legal process and it would be them who says what is done with the camera original film. Am I not correct? Bill Miller

How evidence gets into court depends on its evidentuary value to the case. As you must know ... the Zapruder film is kept in air-tight cold storage for preservation purposes. Even to get it out of storage would take a couple of days for it to be allowed to be warmed back up to room temperature in order to examine it. I am sure that if someone with the proper credentials was to present a valid reason why the previous report concerning the Zapruder film was in error that could rewrite history, then a team of good lawyers could force the film to be brought out of storage. One thing I learned from working with some lawyers I knew was that one never knows how a court will rule. Bill

With all due respect, Jack ... the same can be said about people posing as conspiracy believers who make the most ridiculous claims based on the poorest research imaginable so to make all CT's look like babbling idiots ... I think it could fall under "counter-intelligence". But who cares - either the claims made are vaild or they are not .... that is the issue. Bill Miller

No, Chris ... he is not. Muchmore is elevated above the scene and looking downward, which causes things to stack upwards in the image. Note than Clint Hill's feet are higher up in the image than Jean's. You might recall my pointing out how the motorcyles stacked up in Moorman's photo which showed her camera to be elevated above the tops of the cycles, which in turn proved that Jack was in error about Mary being in the Street because the cycles standing height was no less than 4" higher than Jack gave for Mary's lens height. The same basic concept led to Jack thinking Toni Foster was 7' tall in the Zapruder film. It is just the perception of how things look when viewed from elevated angles. (see Moorman's photo) Bill

Ed, not to be rude, but people like Cyril Wecht has seen the Zapruder film and knows more information about the human body can and cannot do in the stools he passes than you or I will ever know if we were to put our heads together and he has never said that Jackie reacted in any way that was unnormal. Could it be that the head exploded on the top right side of JFK's head away from where Jackie's face was located, thus she avoided much of the force of the spray? I personally do not think that you have enough information to be correct about her not being able to react the way she did, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Bill

One would think, David, that if everyone here who uses the available asassination images is wasting their time, then what is your motive for wasting your time trolling forums like this where its members are wasting their time? Bill Miller

Chris, many times when I do detailed checks over height changes, I will place lines over my overlays to watch for minute changes between frames. In doing so with your animation and while not changing their size , I saw what caused Hill to be slightly taller and wider between locations. 1) One is that Hill is seen more from the rear as he is further down the street which would naturally make his width appear to have gotten wider. 2) If you look at the angle of Hill's standing foot between the two images, you should see that one is slightly angled and the other is almost vertical. This change alone will cause Hill to rise a couple of inches. It would be no different IMO than a woman wearing a pair of 4" heels and then putting on a pair of 6" heels ... her height would naturally rise. 3) Jean Hill turned her head and leaned slightly forward which dropped her height down a few inches between film frames. 4) The two men on the steps with Hudson bent their kness which caused their heights to change as well. Bill Miller

When Connally was hit would have to be factored in as to whether there was a line of sight to him from such a location. Below is a view from Zapruder's filming location. Bill Miller

I think you have misinterpreted Hill's reflection in the clean paint on the SS car as a third leg. Just from memory here, but if you go to the Zapruder film ... you can see legs fade in and out of sight because of blurring with Toni Foster and the people walking behind her.

FWIW - One may wish to keep in mind that the back of Connally's seat is always angled at the same pitch as the cross bar of the limo seeing that they are both parallel to one another. Bill

Here is some information that Gary Mack was kind enough to share with me when I discussed this particular Muchmore print ........... http://www.aparchive.com/aparchive/pages/p...news/ln_jfk.htm The work was done on an "Archangel" machine (not a Spirit as I told you) in England, then converted to US broadcast standards. The conversion introduced visual artifacts and it was also transferred at the wrong speed. The "restored" version runs much faster than normal. Slowing down the tape introduces even more confusing visual artifacts. Gary Mack

Of course Kennedy looks to be coughing, but evidently not to Baghdad Bob Healy. The images are of the Zapruder film, which I thought were obvious. I have most of the frames cleaned and brighted so to better watch the body movements of the individuals in the car during the shooting. (That's been part of that research that Baghdad Bob Healy says that I never do) If you look closely, you can see the shirt cuff even when the lapel is up. Connally's hand can also be seen through the bottom corner of the side window. The white cuff is so exposed that it doesn't allow for the single bullet to have gone through both the edge of the coat sleeve and into the wrist at that moment, which brings me back to when did a missile enter Connally's wrist? Bill Miller

It appears to me that at the moment that Connally took a bullet through his shoulder, that his coat lapel flipped up, thus casting a shadow over the Governor's right white shirt cuff. As the lapel comes immediately back down - Connally's cuff and right hand are above and to the right of the exit wound in his chest, thus the SBT must be in error IMO. It also appears to me that JFK wasn't bringing his hands to his throat, but rather his hands to his mouth as if he was trying to cough so to expell something from his throat. Bill Miller

Another thing is that Connally's suit jacket sleeve must be down by the wound for the shot to have occurred at a certain point. I say this because there was damage to the jacket sleeve by the bullet that then passed into the wrist. Where on the Zapruder film do they align in such a way? Bill Miller

Here is your chance to educate a dufus in your mind, David ... Why is that someone has to believe that the Zapruder film was altered in order to believe that there was a conspiracy? How many post have I made stating how the Zapruder film appears to show JFK being shot from the front with my citing the blood spatter science to support it? Your Baghdad Bob Healy responses will not go unexposed, David - get used to it - for I will make you eat your words with your own words from here on out. Aside from not citing where you posted a film frame as you expect others to do, let's see if I understand you correctly ... a guy (YOU) who tells others that he needs to have the film in front of him, and not some computer image, so he can determine if its an original or a copy print ... wants Groden to look at your computer image and render a professional opinion. Once again you are contradicting things you have said in other post. Now who is wasting bandwidth, David! Bill Miller

Gary, the difference is that people generally know why they feel one way or the other .... Healy takes both positions. He should have been a politician IMO. Bill

David, you have taken a position that there is no proof the Zapruder film is altered and another that you believe the same Zapruder film is altered. Which half of you falls under the "lone nut dufuses" ... the left side of your body or the right? Bill Miller

It is said that when a person gets backed into a corner and has nowhere to go ... rather than to explain themselves, they take the position that they don't have to explain themself to anybody. In doing just that, David ... you have made it possible to use your own words against you and to expose the fact that your purpose here is just to xxxxx the forums. Bill

I think I posted Kodac's link on that very issue and you wanted to argue rather than to read it. Look it up in the archives. Seeing how you, David, like to cite how only experts are qualified to talk about something ... enjoy this link .... http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf Bill Miller

Here is the phone number to the Museum (214) 747 - 6660 ext.6693. Now about where Muchmore's original film is .... this is the second time in one 4 page thread that you asked me that question and this will be the second time I have answered it .................. Bill Miller View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts Jan 2 2007, 11:16 PM Post #30 Super Member Group: JFK Posts: 1740 Joined: 2-August 04 Member No.: 1084 . David ... there can never be an even playing field for a xxxxx. As far as Muchmore's film ... I would contact the Muchmore family if you really want to see it for as I recall .... I read or heard that when the UPI division that had it closed down, it was said to have been given it back to the Muchmore family. I hope that helps - now don't ask me to go and actually retrieve it for you. Bill Miller

Jack - I think I'll stick with Zavada and Groden on this over some senile old man who has never bothered to go view the film or have the knowledge of the scientist who invented it. I'll leave you to finding the Elm Street Midget, the parking meters who are taller than the street witnesses. Like I have said ... you claim all these world shaking finds and can't even get one tabloid to put that crap into print. Bill Miller 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." From: (Ray Fielding) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:53:52 EST Suject: Zavada To: (Len Colby) Mr. Colby: I apologize for my delay in responding to your e-nail. I have been out of the city for the last couple weeks and am only now catching up with my correspondence. I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruda film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny. You may quote me. Raymond Fielding

Jack, I did not say one could merely paint on 8MM film and have it go undetected ... I agree with you on that point. That means that the copying process back onto film has to be done. You say you don't know anything about movie film in one breath and you are trying to talk with film expertise in the next breath ... which is it?Go read the following ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy said, “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” What David has said is that if you look at a film and the best frames are slightly fuzzy, then it is a copy and the further away from the original it is - the fuzzier those best frames will be. Now go to the archives and ask to see the original film so you can come back and describe their sharpness or fuzziness - what ever you find the case to be. Groden has done this - Zavada has done this ... I suspect that Jack White has not done this. The point David made is valid and it is what Groden has been saying all along. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is the guy who claims to have no experience with Movie cameras and film. Bill Miller

Ed ... the things you say - I swear! Bill Miller

Jack, you (yourself) has said that one cannot merely paint onto a 8MM film frame to do alterations. Groden and Healy both agree what happens to the image when even a first generation copy is made. You say that you 'have no experience in movie film' and maybe that is why you do not see where you keep missing the points they made. So your position that all someone needs to do is retouch some 8 x 10s and make a copy film using those altered images runs into trouble for the reasons previously stated, which then the alterations would be detectable, especially by experts looking at the film under close scrutiny. It's the process of getting those alterfe images back onto film (that you claim not to know anything about) that would leave the tell tales signs of it not being the original, b ut rather at least a first generation copy. The frames that were not altered would then take on the appearence of a second generation copy ... maybe even a third like MPI's version. Bill

Jack, I hardly need to explain your errors anymore for I have been archiving your past remarks that counter your current ones. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8939&st=30 Post #41 Jack White: “I have absolutely no experince with movie cameras and film; all my photo exprience is with still cameras” Even David Healy and Groden have said that a first generation copy can be determined .... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy: “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” Bill Miller