Bill Miller

Frank, I do not recall ever hearing where the mortician said that cameras were taking photos while he covered the large hole in the back of the President's head. Below is a clip of the head damage. Note the jagged shade line in the right rear portion of the skull. I suspect that the elevated avulsed bones took on more light which illuminated those parts of the head unevenly compared to the rest of the posterior portion of the head. Bill Miller

OK ... please do and be precise if you can. Thanks, Bill

Well, Mike just lost out on another dollar, but I will even it back up by not responding to your stupid remarks in response #354. After all, what Mike said about us both was true. Bill Miller

You must not have ever read even the report - have you. Go look at the exhibits they used in their evidence and show me where the large hole is on the back of the head. The Dallas doctors threw in the information about the large hole and Specter most always hurried away from it by asking about a small hole that no one saw. I do not recall a single time where Specter actually probed into this large wound the doctors spoke of. Guinn (with the AARB) made mention that when the doctors mentioned the large hole in the back of the head - Specter stated that it was in the top of the head. That was part of the reason that the AARB wanted to settle the matter once and for all. Bill Miller

No, David ... that is not what I said. The moving limo is what caused the 'motion blur'. The Zapruder camera was not designed and the film he used was not designed for high-speed photography. Maybe you should wait for the varsity reading team so to help you understand my responses better. Bill Miller

Asked and answered numerous times. What date have you made your appointment at the archives for, Davie boy? fuzziness? Geez Bill, give us an example. Say show us a 1st generation frame (from some verifiable source) compared with a 2nd or 3rd generation 8mm Z-frame (from some verifiable source) and let us make the comparison and distinction.... Your pal Groden will supply you the needed 1st generation frames .... Post all my remarks, all your remarks and by all means have Groden come in here and POST all HIS remarks -- Hell, I don't even believe you speak to Groden.... post away![/color] Sure, I'll use the source from Costella's site that you always brag about. Seeing how you endorse that site and must know what it says - you can go back to it for the image sources. Bill Miller PS: try and not xxxxx too much, Davie ... Ashton is getting jealous when he see's that he isn't the only one posting back and forth.

In your attempt to try and play the forum xxxxx once again - you have actually made my point. JFK and his head wound were always in motion just as the limo was and that is where the motion blur comes in. Any idiot should know that stationary objects will appear somewhat sharp if the camera doesn't move causing panning blur. Can you read that license plate or tell anything about the design on the headlamps or grill in your frame - of course you can't. Back to the type of camera and film Zapruder used ... what can you tell me about JFK's expression in your frame ... is he smiling, is he frowning, are his eyes open - what? How about the faces on the stationary people along the south side of Elm Street? Bill Miller

David, we have been through the MPI process once before over the Life Magazine images. Also, Zaparuder's camera wasn't made for high speed filming - if it was then we'd see the bone plate coming off the top of the President's head or better yet - the bullets flying through the air, so don't waste my time. As far as the varsity goes .. when they get here I will show them a couple of your post where you claimed not have seen any evidence of alteration and how even a 1st generation copy can be recognized compared to the in-camera original. i'm sure they'll have some questions for YOU! Bill Miller

The license plates on the limo were in plain view and not obstructed by hair. I ask Ashton to read the large numbers on that plate from the frame crop below. I then ask after he finds that it is not possible, may he then explain why it is he thinks the Zapruder film should show enough clarity to see a wound through all that hair that is outstretched on the back of JFK's head? Bill Miller

Ashton, you are using MPI frames that have been digitally done and through a process of filters has caused an already motion blurred piece of film to be even fuzzier. The aquiring of knowledge is the key to solving any problem, so why are you refusing to at least aquire some knowledge about the effects of motion blur in conjuntion with an old type amateur camera like Zapruder used? Bill Miller

David, you are your own worst enemy and your past post will never let you off the hook. For years you have been asking for someone to post in-sync assassination films to show that they matched one another so to put the alteration stuff to rest. Now that someone has been doing it - you come up with ridiculous statement above. You asked for it and once you recieve it you want to take a detour and claim it cannot be confirmed. What a sorry-assed waste of forum space your replies have become. The same applied to your claims of how forensic testing needed to be done and to test your sincerity, I asked you to tell us what forensic testion would you do if you had the said in-camera original film in front of you. To date you have not answered that question though it has been presented each time you xxxxx this forum, which means you were only trying to salvage a position that you really were not prepared to defend. Why would Groden need to to that, David. All one has to do is go back and read your remarks on how to tell a 1st generation copy, 2nd generation copy, or a third generation copy from the camera original. Your post telling us this stuff made it seem like anyone can do it. Walking some xxxxx through the degree of fuzziness created by each generation is nothing to concern one's self about when none of them do not show the sharpness that you claimed the camera original would show. Do I need to go back and post YOUR remarks once again? Groden and Zavada have taken the time to make an appointment and go look at the said camera original Zapruder film ... when are you going to do it is my question? Bill Miller

Yes, that seems to be the only position that Ashton can take. He comes across as someone who has switched from porn to the Education Forum to satisfy the same needs.

Ashton - is it you who is saying that because the governments remaining autopsy photos show no large hole in the back of JFK's head and that Sibert says there was ... that somehow the two are somehow working together? It seems to me that they are in opposition of each other. Bill Miller

Ashton, The answer to your question comes by first learning the officail position that came out within a couple hours of the shooting and before any investigation had been completed. The official word said that the deed was the act of one man who acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. Showing an exit wound of avulsed bones to the back of the head means that there was a conspircy for the laws of physics could not be dismissed, which would also mean that Oswald not only didn't act alone, but possibly didn't fire the fatal shot either. How someone who could know enough how to put a 3D animation clip together, but could not possibly of come up with such a possible scenario is beyond me. Even if you choose not to accept the witness testimony evidence before you ... it should not have kept you from being able to answer your own question. The fact that you did have to ask it as if you had not a clue to the answer makes me believe that you are purposely playing games here or are not capable of investigating this case intelligently. Bill Miller

I agree with Frank. From what little I recall Gary Mack telling me about the splice ... I think Frank hit the nail on the head. Why not use the color copy or B&W version of Marie's film without the damage for the in-sync study? Bill

I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot. Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear. Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side? Mr. HUDSON - Right hand. Not to help contribute to this thread getting off-topic, but maybe some perspective on what these witnesses like Hudson and Bill Newman would have seen and how quick it happened can offer a better explanation as to why they thought the wound to the President's was where they interpreted it to be. The clip below concentrates on just the President's head and not the many other facets of movement in these witnessses field of view that their brains are recording at the same tramtic instant. Bill Miller

The "Why" is anyone's guess ... it doesn't remove the overwhelming evidence that the ones that were not destroyed or missing from the complete set, were created as not to show the gross damage to the back of the President's head. Let's go back to the first few hours of the assassination and ask why the White House would state that the act was not a conspiracy, but rather the deed of one man when they could not possibly have known what the evidence of a complete investigation would have shown at that time. And what did they do .... they took control of all the evidence without the case being theirs. It appears that someone from the onset felt that it would be determental to let the public think the killing of their President was related to an international conspiracy during the height of the Cold War. I also have a strong hunch that Jackie described that rear head wound in her testimony and that is why it is not complete in the WC volumes. I do not believe for a moment that the Kennedy family ever sat down with Jackie and showed those photos to her. In fact, I believe Jackie would never have allowed such a thing to happen. Bill Miller

Ashton, to continue to hold your opinon, you must first have evidence to the contrary as to whats been presented. To show this forum that you are not merely some disgruntled xxxxx - please explain why it is that those basic laws of physics are in error? The Dallas doctors had enough sense to understand which way a bullet must be traveling if the bones were sprung opened to the rear, so let us hear your rebuttal to that. Bill Miller

What a misstatement of fact! The Commission never even considered where the large hole came from ... all Specter did was quickly dance away from that wound so he could inquire about a small hole below that wound. The reason for this could only be because of the physics involved because as whats been said before - a bullet moving from front to back will avulse the bones rearward, which happens to be what was described by the competent physicians who saw it. The small neat hole that Specter kept probing to find would have meant a shot from the rear. I might also add that a tangental strike to the skull will shed more energy and change its natural path as the bullet passes through the head, so to say the wound lead back to the TSBD is nothing more than you inventing evidence that is not into evidence. However, I for one do appreciate all the things you have said on this matter, Ashton. It shows just how ignorant one has to be about the evidence to endorse the lone assassin theory. the only other choice is deceitful. In your attempt to do so, you have shown that you are willing to support your position by using what you susppected was flawed 3D views, that all the witnesses (medical, governmental, and civilian alike) all lied as some sort of massive conspiracy to promote evidence against a photo they had never seen before until after the fact, and refuse to educate yourself so to apply the sciences involved pertaining to both the effects of motion blur and back spatter science. Bill Miller

You know - you are right. I mean, who ever heard of our government withholding information from the American people. Bill Miller

The answer pertains to something called 'reflective angle'. The mist is between Zapruder and the sun, which the sun illuminates the craanial fluid. Muchmore is at a diffeent angle to the cranial fluid, thus it isn't illuminated in the same way making it harder to see. Bill Miller

You have left out the third possiblity, Ashton ... 3) The back of the head shows an enormous bulge and someone like yourself hasn't bothered to spend one minute trying to figure out why that is. That you have not sought one once of information either through literature or expert opinion as to why an old fashion film camera running at only 18fps like Zapruder's could not possibly catch the kind of details that you claim should be seen there. Pat at least tried to explain the bulge as hair left standing straight up in defiance of gravity because JFK's head went flying backwards. Here is something else in the AARB inquiry that you may not find of interest, but most everyone else will .... Mr. Guinn: ................... One other thing that I would like to just advise you on briefly is we identified the person who had developed autopsy photographs from President Kennedy. She's a witness who had not previously been identified before. Her name is Sandra Spencer and she worked at the Naval Photographic Center -- National Photographic Center in Washington. She, in the course of her work, typically did White House photography. She so said that shortly after the assassination she developed photographs. The photographs that she says that she developed did not correspond with those that were in the National Archives. So according to her testimony, there was some photographs that she herself developed that showed a wound in the occipitoparietal area. Possibly those are the photos that Dennis David said that William Pitzer had shown him. By the way, Sandra Spencer was never called to testify before the Commission or the HSCA. Bill Miller Guinn goes on to say: Then to Dr. Jenkins he refers -- this is from packet MD 96. He refers to a great laceration on the right side of the head temporal and occipital. He also says the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. In his testimony to the Warren Commission he said that -- on Page 48 he thought that this wound in the head was a wound of exit, although he wasn't sure. He said, quote, "I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound." He then said that, "I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." From Page 51 of his Warren Commission testimony he says, "Because the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit, and the appearance of the wound in the neck, and I also thought it was it a wound of exit." Finally in his testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations he said, There was one segment of bone blown out. It was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum, lower rear brain, was hanging out from the hole in the right rear of the head. Then Dr. Jones in his testimony to the Warren Commission -- this is Packet MD 98. On Page 53 he says there was a small wound at the midline of the neck and a large wound in the right posterior side of the head, a large -- later, there was a large defect in the back side of the head. (posterior definition - Situated behind; hinder; -- opposed to anterior.) And then in-- testimony to the Warren Commission on Page 56 he said that there appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull. And, Mr. Specter referred to that as the top of the President's head. And finally in handwritten comment -- this is on the last page of the packet that I have given to you. It says there was a small -- that just refers to the -- to the neck wound. I won't read that. Then Dr. McClelland in his testimony to the Warren Commission said, "I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered apparently by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half. And this sprung open the bones that I had mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out," That was from Page 33 if I didn't mention that. Then on Page 34 he also mentions loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissue.

With all due respect, Frank ... the very first post that fathered this thread mentions a film that is not supposed to have any missing frames during the shooting as having missing frames. The removal of film frames would be an alteration by definition. "The red lines between the black lines are my estimates of missing frames. When the film runs the missing frames give an appearance of smooth continuity. When properly placed in space on the composite the jerky leaps of speed at the missing frames is obvious." I think you showing the films in sync was an important task to complete and I commend you for it, but it was that needed task to answer that alteration question once and for all concerning the possibility of the assassination films being tampered with .... least ways that is the way I read it. Now I will step back and observe your continued posting on the Muchmore film in the "Missing Nix frame" thread because I think it too, is part of authenticating these assassination films running in sync with each other. Also, thanks to Robin - for his film grabs are really good ... some of the best I have seen pertaining to the Muchmore film. Bill Miller

Ashton, you are the only idiot making such claims. If you would like, I bet that I can make a clip showing the Nix film in really slow motion so you can follow Jackie's white gloves. Your taking on Hitler's way of thinking that if you tell a lie enough times that it will become the truth will not work with intelligent people. No matter where you got your data, if it doesn't replicate the real life views, then the 3D model is flawed and deemed worthless for what you are attempting to use it for. For you to keep beating that dead horse reminds me of the saying that goes something like this .... 'The difference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid never knows when he is wrong.' If you think I am being hard on you, then read the last sentence of your reply again where it says that your 3D views are of a concern to you and cannot be gauranteed. In that sentence you are telling this forum that you have repeatidly ran up response after response bad mouthing possible lines of sight by way of using a model that you had concerns about its accuracy. Now if that isn't one for the books! Bill Miller

Dawn, Lifton made some mistakes along the way, but that is what happens in ones intial inquiry .... he still set the stage for what was to come. What people do not know is that Paul O'Conner, Jerrol Custer, Dennis David and others didn't know one another until about 1992 when they first had met. Some people think that just because they were all at Bethesda - they somehow all worked together. I am totally convinced that the wintsses from Parkland to the mortician who prepared the body for burial had all seen the hole. I do not believe in the 'mass hallucination theory' and I can see the bone plate in the Zapruder film does not match in size to the one seen in the autopsy photos as we know them. How Robert came into getting his hands on the Zapruder film is a moot point. groden has told me how it came to be that he got to make copies of the Zapruder film and if I was him ... I wouldn't make that information public either. Let us just be glad that he did make copies which prevented anyone in later years to be able to claim alterations were done by more sophiosticated means, not that would fly copnsidering the Zfilm (Kodachrome II film) cannot still be altered today and not have it go unnoticed. The fact that Robert went to the National Archives and examined the alleged original film and saw it to not have any of the signs of being even a first generation copy is the main point to be recognized. Zavada's expertise in Kodachrome II film only validates what Groden has said. Bill Miller