Bill Miller

John, don't be fooled by the blur because when a camera moves above or below the horizon line to an object - it gives a false impression of movement. You may recall the tree on the south pasture ... I did a clip where such an occurence happens and it made the tree do what Jackie's arm appears to have done. Bill Z312 and Z314 with Z313 removed

Here is a better example clip showing the head bouncing back in 1/18th of a second intervals. Bill Miller

It's Ok, Mark ... it is not an argumentative point because it has already been verified to be possible when experts have explained how it could happen that way. Could it happen another way ... I have not heard of such an example that would explain the problems we have discussed. It now seems to be a matter of me explaining it properly, so thanks for your patience with me. You also appear to be much heavier than JFK was, but so am I. However, if one bows his head forward and just lightly nudges the top of their head - it has no choice but to rock forward. Now multiply that force to the entent of a bullet slamming into your head and your body should react to that which happened to JFK. The reaction that I speak of can be compared to a shock or possibly a jolt. It occurs in an instant. The force of the bullet hits the top front part of the bone plate that came off the top of the skull and the energy is absorbed down through the spine in that brief instant. The head having been rocked forward as far as it could go bounces back the other way causing a type of whiplash effect that pulls the upper torso of JFK along with it. The clip below has not been stabilized, but watch very closely to the back of JFK's head .... I see it rock forward between Z312 and Z313 only to then already be straightening back up by Z314 as it bounces back the other way, thus pulling the President back and to the left with it. Bill Miller Pay close attention to the angle of pitch to the back of Kennedy's head at Z313 and again at Z314. In less than 1/18th of a second the President's head has changed direction. When one accelerates their car for example ... does not the head start to rock forward as the upper trunk of the body gets pushed back into the seat, which then causes the head to come springing back with what is commonly called a whiplash? What I am trying to say is that the pitch of JFK's head went forward while at least the right shoulder went backwards in Z313 from the aborbtion of all that force passing through the body ..... and by Z314 the shoulder was back in place and the head had returned to where it was before the impact of the bullet.

Maybe they saw Gordon Arnold diving to the ground and his movement caught their eye. Bill Miller

Ashton, the woman you speak of is assassination witness Toni Foster. As far as anyone not knowing what was happening yet, in Altgen's 6 we can see Charles Brehm standing with arms raised in the air as he is clapping his hands, Yarborough is siting in the VP car and smiling, not to mention other witnesses who seemed to be oblivious to the first two shots. Even the people just behind Toni Foster are still walking towards Elm Street. One question I have concerning your illustrations .... to have their views be accurate - one needs the demensions of the plaza and its reference points to be correct. What did you use in the way of data to insure the accuracy of your 3D model? Bill Miller

Mark, I have seen no evidence of JFK pivoting anywhere ... I do however, see him leaning slightly towards his wife. I also cannot see JFK's left shoulder to know what it did. All I can comment on is the shoulder that is visible in the Zapruder film and that is his right shoulder. What I do see after the impact is JFK going back and TO THE LEFT. This causes me to think that the right shoulder is what went back because of the blow to the head for if both shoulders went backwards at the same time, then I would think JFK would have merely went rearward and not back and TO THE LEFT. When I observe someone in this posture, I note that because they are leaning slightly to their left - their left shoulder is anchored and the right shoulder is more susceptible to being moved by a transfer of energy. Like I said a moment ago, something had to allow JFK to go back and TO THE LEFT and his right shoulder being pushed rearward would make that occurence happen and would also hide the natural rotation of Jackie's arm against JFK's back that I have been pointing out. Bill Miller

I wouldn't offer to shine them, Ashton, so don't worry. Well, now you've gotten so flustered that you're making it up when I just posted exactly what proves you false. I'll post it again: MR. BOWERS: ...[T]here were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket. ...On the triple underpass, there were two policemen. One facing each direction, both east and west. There was one railroad employee, a signal man there with the Union Terminal Co., and two welders that worked for the Fort Worth Welding firm, and there was also a laborer's assistant furnished by the railroad to these welders. When you count this time, try using both hands. Ashton, I would suggest that you get a copy of Altgens 7 and count the people on the triple underpass and study their position in relation to that underpass. You claim to be a student of the assassination, then I suggest you learn the material better before trying to come across like some jackass arm-chair researcher trying to cut corners by not studying the available material in-depth beforehand. There were 14 people on that overpass when the shooting occurred and I think you will find them all in that photo .... none of them had a view down the wooden fence-line. How does one change his story the first time he tells it, Ashton? What you said doesn't make sense and shows me that you are not thinking things through before trolling this forum. Hoffman has never changed his story. What has happened is that interpreters have not cited him correctly. Hoffman is a deaf mute and more importantly he doesn't have a good use of the english language. People who have actually looked into Ed's background know this. As I said before, Ed has volunteered to be polygraphed .... I would be interested in having you do the same to see how sincere you are concerning your reasons for trolling the members of this forum. And yes, Bower's mentioned the guy wearing a white shirt, but he didn't say the guy didn't have on a coat or a hat. What Bowers did say was the man was up by the fence looking in the direction of the motorcade. Both Moorman's photo and the Willis photo captures this individual and lo' and behold he is wearing a fedora type hat just as Hoffman describes. Don't be so hard on yourself, Ashton ... just because you are wearing a watch and watching it tick doesn't necessarily mean that its a "weasel watch" ... just that a weasel is wearing it. I believe the shot that killed JFK came from the exact location that Hoffman saw the man with the rifle, which is the exact same spot where the men on the underpass saw the smoke come through the trees which is the same spot that the accoustic evidence says a shot came from. It would certainly explain the avusion seen on the back of the President's head by so many medical personnel at Parkland. Bill Miller

The forum software had created a duplicate post for some reason, thus I deleted it. Bill

Ashton, I can see why you are unable to see the avlusion (not evulsion) in your Zapruder images for I can hardly tell that you are even viewing JFK and his wife in those poor blury images. Why did you opt to distort them so badly? There is just enough motion blur on the good copy images that makes seeing the individual bone fragments protruding up through the hair impossible, but if you look at JFK's head in silhouette you can see the avuslion. Below is such a view where the natural contour of the President's head is disrupted by the bones being sprung outward. As Jackie's white glove comes off the President's left shoulder it offers a backdrop that allows one to see the smooth contour of the Presidents's head near the neck before the abrupt left turn outward as the bones are now sprung opened in the occipital region of the skull. With JFK's head turned even more towards Zapruder's camera the coning shape of the head becomes even more visible. The President's head is clearly misshapen in a way that reminds me of the old Bugs Bunny cartoons when someone had a blast of gunpowder go off in their face. And no matter how poorly one tries to hide the deformity by degrading the image - the coning shape is still present when seen at certain angles to the camera. Bill Miller

Ashton, allow me to do your homework .... From the RR tower that Bowers was positioned in - the mouth of the underpass covers an area that extends from Elm Street to Commerece Street, which does cover the two mens location being exactly where Holland and Hoffman placed them. Bowers saw only two men, as well as Hoffman ... the same two men. You also mentioned in a previous response something about the men on the underpass rushing over behind the fence ... let me tell you that Holland told Mark Lane that maybe as much as two minutes elapsed before they moved off the underpass. The post assasination films showing pans of the underpass also support Holland's statement. Maybe instead of drawing inaccurate cartoons of the plaza, try going there instead and looking the place over ... that can be your homework! In fact, your view of the RR tower has nothing to do with the view of the mouth of the underpass because you are looking at the RR yard from the west side of the triple underpass and not the east side that the men were seen standing on. You also seem to dismiss a frontal shot, so take the time to explain away the bones on the back of JFK's head being avuslsed to the rear, but try doing it in a way that you don't come off sounding like a jackass who hates the world! I know there are members here who would appreciate it. Someone who I don't recall even posting in this thread sent me this message pertaining to the tone you have been taking with members here. The message said " .......... FWIW, you've got my sympathies. I figure eventually the sorry fuc#er will latch on to every member of the forum to spread his xxxx on. As far as I'm concerned he's only playing a very elaborate and sophisticated trolling and disinformation game. He's not really interested in anyone finding out the truth about anything; he's only interested in scoring points in a PR propaganda game ...................... " I hope you find this information useful. Bill Miller

One obvious explanation would be that MPI moved their camera when taking a zoomed image of that frame or someone when transfering the image to film had not centered the image properly. There are several instances in the MPI film where odd occurences took place like this that are not seen on the actual camera original. So what I am saying is that any variances between the two (full and close-up) versions were of MPI's doing because one is just a photo of the other - only zoomed in. I remember touching on this stuff a few years ago with Groden who explained the causes to me, but it has been too long ago for me to remember exactly how he put them. I recall Gary Mack once saying that there was talk of MPI doing the job over again because there were so many mistakes, but to date the idea has gone by the waste side. Bill Miller

Leaving alone for a moment the testimony of Bowers that they were in his view, leaving alone the complete absence of the slightest shred of evidence that either of them had a rifle at any relevant time, here is the head shot view from the end of the picket fence near where the cops were stationed:One is not considered an expert for learning the facts of the case, but rather someone who bothered to do their homework before offering an opinion. Lee Bower's described the two men out in front of him and they were not at the end of the fence, but rather in the area that the accoustic evidence says a shot was fired from. Ed Hoffman saw the man with the suit and hat turn away from the fence and that man had a rifle. Hoffman said the man tossed the rifle off to someone else near the steam pipe. Hoffman has volunteered to take a polygraph to prove his veracity. Independent witness Austin Miller (I think that was the name) told Seymour Weitzman that he saw someone through the trees toss something near the steam pipe following the shooting. Bower's spoke of this man, but all he said was there was a flash of light or some strange occurence that happened at that spot where the man had been standing, but had lost track of the man. The men on the overpass heard a shot from that location and immediately saw smoke come through the trees from the same said location. The smell of burnt gunpowder lingered in the air at that place and was noted by at least one person. The official inquiries dealt with this problem by trying to blame it on the steam pipe that was almost 100 feet away. That would be the same pipe that that was enclosed and didn't have any vents that would allow such a thing and even if it could - with the wind gust seen at the time of the shooting - steam would never hold its shape long enough to be blown 100 feet down the fence line and then through the trees so people on the overpass would see it. So to say there is no shred of evidence of a shot fired from that location is not actually a true statement of fact. Bill Miller

Correct, Chris. They are the "close-up" frames that MPI presented. If I understand what you are saying correctly, the wide ''full frame' version has the numbering put on the outer frame, thus when played in sequence the numbers come over the top of one asnother. The enlarged 'close-up' version was a zoom-in of the full frame and they placed the numbers on the grass. When MPI played the frames in sequence, they aligned the numbers so they would come over the top of one another. When you stablized the frames by using the occupants of the limo - it caused the numbers on the close-up version to be off-set. You may recall some researchers animations where they staggered the full frame version so to make a smooth transition from frame to frame Below are some frames from both my copies off MPI. I have not stabilized these frames and I can see pitch changes and camera movement between frames on both versions. If one stablizes both versions correctly - the numbers will not come over the top of one another. (see example below) One other thing, MPI merely took photos of the original film frames and I believe there is evidence that they did not get each frame photographed at the same zoom or the each frame was not perfectly flat and there lies some degree of error. When the final product was finished and each frame sized equally - the images within that frame may have varied. There is no doubt that MPI made mistakes that have since been regrettable. Bill Miller

There is no need for the waist to pivot at all. Someone can nudge your shoulder without you turning your waist. I have demonstrated this movement many times on others, so I would have to be there with you to see why you are not accomplishing it on your own. The movement is so natural that as I said, Al Carrier (trained in CSI) was able to give a good explanation for it as told to him by some of the experts he knew. If it didn't happen the way I have said, then you too, need to explain the absense of the rotation that should have occurred with JFK and Jackie between Z312 and Z313. Bill Miller

David, you are the optical printing guy, so why respond with a question ... why not tell people what your opinion is and why you take that position? This past year you ran up thread after thread with similar responses that never offered a shred of evidence to any of the discussions. In the end you were pinned down to admitting that you had never seen any signs of alteration to the Zapruder film, you said that even a first generation copy of a film will show slight fuzziness to the images even in the sharper frames (which Groden and Zavada had already looked for and couldn't find on the alleged camra original), and when asked to tell us what forensic testing would you do to a film that you kept saying it needed to be done to - you went completely silent and never gave an answer in reply. Since that time you have also gotten to see key parts of the films running in sync with one another and still you said nothing. Now you surface with the same type of responses that failed you in the past by merely suggesting something that is supposed to be related to your field and you offered not a word of proof for why you bring it up - why??? Can you not do a little better than this or do you think the researchers here (including Ashton) don't deserve informative responses? I for one welcome any information that you may have to offer and I would think that by now you will have turned over a new leaf and would stop playing games here. Bill Miller

David, as someone who wanted to hold the Zapruder film in his hands so you could authenticate it - you should know what version I used and besides, the motion blur is on each print right up to the camera original ... of course you should already of known this, which means that your response didn't address anything at all. I will assume that is why you enjoyed Ashton's say nothing response so much. Also, Merry Christmas to you too David, I hope that the spirit of Christmas will bring you back to the forum with a sincere mindset to actually take the JFK assassination more seriously in the upcoming new year. If you do decide to take the forum seriously, then by all means tell us what happened to the rotation of the limo between Z312 and Z313 and why JFK blurred in the opposite than the limo did if it wasn't for that jolt that he took upon impact. Bill Miller Bill Miller

Chris, you could start by using the most magnified images possible rather than the wide frame view which is little more than mud. I will ask you the same questions that I asked 'Sir Ashton the factless critic' .... what happened to the shift that occurred between JFK and his wife in each frame prior to the head shot and please explain why JFK's shoulder blurred in the opposite direction than the limo's did ??? There can only be one reason for all this - I have given you mine - let's have yours. Below is that shift once more in Z311 and Z312. I use the most magnification possible without losing clarity. Despite what John has said about the dropping of the street - the pitch of the President's right ear can be measured against the right shoulder and one will find there is no change. One can draw a thin line from the bottom of JFK's right ear lobe to the tip of his nose and run the two frames over that line - other than the reflective angle change to the sun - the changes in pitch are virtually non-existent. The only noticeable change is the rotation of the limo which allows more of Jackie's arm to be seen coming out from behind JFK's head and shoulder. If someone can see more than this, then I'd like to hear what they have to say and why they are saying it. If we remove the fact that JFK's head pitches forward in Z313, why didn't Jackie's arm become more visible in Z313 than it was in Z312? Bill Miller

Ashton, I note that you don't ever seem to speak in specific terms, but rather in generalities like above. Instead of appearing like an uneducated idiot who tries to use large moronic terms like "Flobbergobber and Gombligernicampoikananity" to cover your inability to speak intelligently about the details being offered ... start by explaining where the rotation of the limo (in other words the angle shift between JFK and his wife) went to if the shoulder didn't move backwards? And while you are at it, explain the motion blur of the President appearing on the opposite side that it did with the limo .... there are reasons for this being that way on the film, so let us her your most wise explanation for all of this. The simple rule of physics that I am utilizing stems from JFK's head already being pitched forward so that when the bullet hit him from the front - the head rocked forward while the shoulder was driven backwards and that explains missing rotation of the occupants between Z312 and Z313, and it also explains the blur to JFK going in the opposite direction than the blur of the limo went. A simple test of those rules of physics can be easily accomplished by sitting in a chair in the President's posture and having someone hit you in the top of the head in a front to back motion. The blow doesn't have to be hard to see how the body reacts to it - the harder the force - the more pronounced the movement. It is obvious that the bones on the back of JFK's head were sprung opened to the rear ("avulsed" was the term used by so many Parkland doctors), thus meaning a shot hit JFK from the front. The bullet didn't go through the President's nostrils, nor through his eye, nor through his mouth, but instead it must have entered the top of the skull. Dennis David, who worked at Bethesda, has told me they were taught that when a bone plate such as the one that came off the top of JFK's head .... that somewhere along its outer edge should be signs of where the bullet penetrated the skull. Oddly enough the bone plate seen in the autopsy photos isn't as large as the one seen in the Zapruder film, but of course by the time the body had reached Bethesda - the chain of evidence had been compromised IMO. Bill Miller

John, supposed you'd like to tell me how that applies to a stabilized frame by frame comparison such as this one ...

John, I don't know if the sinking in elevation is all that important for the stabilization has not only adjusted for that, but when the car was moving at its fastest speed - I blieve that the FBI said it was moving forward at 11 inches per Zframe. The car had slowed even more by Z312/313, but even at 11 inches of distance traveled per film frame it wouldn't cause the limo to sink that much in elevation ... or so I would think. That is the point I have been trying to make. Bill Miller

Chris, I have reviewed your movie very closely despite its very small size and I would like to point out something to you that I have said several times now .... I will use your movie as the example. The limo rotates counter clockwise with each frame, thus if JFK's shoulder was to remain stationary and not moved an inch (remember the dummie reference I used previously), then one would still see more of Jackie's sleeve creases coming out from behind the President. This is a rule of physics concerning perspective and how it is viewed by way of an ever changing angle to the subjects. The reason for it not being seen in your clip is because you positioned your frames in such a way to make the shoulder not appear to move, but in doing so you removed the rotation of the limo which should have caused more of Jackie to become visible between those two frames. In other words, if YOU see no rotation between JFK and Jackie between Z312 and Z313, then it is because of the President's right shoulder moving backwards as the energy of the force of the impact passed down the trunk of his body. Take a moment and consider what I said about the blurring issues. Zapruder moves his camera in a way that causes the forward moving limo to blur to the east. If JFK was stationary, then he too, should blur in the same direction that the limo did. But JFK blurred to the west, which means that his shoulder moved with Zapruder's pan, but only faster. The back of JFK (the east side of his back) did not blur as the front side did because the shoulder moving backwards for that one instant canceled out the rotation between JFK and his wife. Below is a line drawn over the edge of the suit coat of JFK. In Z313 the image blurs, but forget the blur and look where the solid part of the coat has moved to ... Bill Miller

Let's get a few things straight so we can at least start on the same plane ... feel free to mention any numbered point that you do not understand because each one is important. 1) I count only 7 frame transitions, thus these are not at 10% opacity increments. 2) The limo rotates away from Zapruder's camera with each frame. This is because the angle Zapruder has to the occupants changes with each film frame as the car moves forward. (see Z311 and Z312 example below) This means that even if the occupants were stationary dummies - the crease in Jackie's coat would continue to come out from behind JFK just as the sun would do in relation to the moon as seen from the earth if we were watching a lunar eclipse. 3) The limo blur that you pointed out blurs to the east because Zapruder moves his camera at the same instant. (see below) JFK blurs to the west not because Zapruder moved his camera, but because the President's body has just taken a jolt. So instead of more of Jackie's coat sleeve creases becoming more visible - the instant backward movement of JFK's right shoulder hid the rotation of the limo pertaining to Jackie's sleeve crease, the shade line on the coat drops, and where the suit coat was solid in tone above the red line, which hid JFk's flesh colored neck - it is now flesh colored because the shoulder moved backwards which caused the blur to be seen on the right/to the west. (see below) To recap: the limo blurs to the east because Zapruder moved his camera - JFK's shoulder blurs in the opposite direction because JFK's trunk was jolted rearward as the body absorbed the impact of the bullet. Bill Miller

Chris, I understand that there is some motion blur going on between frames, but that clip you posted is not stable ... even the two frames look like a pulsating heart beat when seen in motion. The limo is rotating counter clockwise with each frame Zapruder captures. I mentioned focusing on a certain point(s) in my previous post. The example below shows one such point. I created this clip so that the rotation of the car could be seen in slow motion. The crease in Jackie's sleeves move out from behind the President between Z311 and Z312 just as one should expect them to do. However, despite some motion blur between Z312 and Z313, the President's top right shoulder moves backwards, thus eliminating the rotation of the limo for than instant. In doing so it didn't allow the creases in Jackie's coat to countinue coming out from behind the President. My experience with all of this is that motion blur still allows one to see through the ghost image. (see below) In frame Z313, the top of the right shoulder does slide backwards beyond the ghost image of the motion blur, thus it hides Jack's coat creases which if nothing else - they should have continued coming out from behind the President. Bill Miller

About the color of the President's car - The limo was dark blue. The point made above touches on the need for stable images and this is why I take so much time in stablizing the frames in order to track the most minute movements of those individuals inside the limo. What stabilizing the images will do is cut out any degree of error in interpretating movement brought on by Zapruder's constant moving of the camera as he filmed the assassination. I have read many post where faulty observations were made because of camera jiggling, which doesn't mean the poster wasn't correct in what he or she was seeing, but rather they were not considering that other factors were giving an illusion of movement that simply was not there. One such example was the idea that JFK's head had been hit by a bullet prior to the exposure of Z312, thus causing signs of the head moving forward at that point. By stabilizing the images in Z311 and Z312, I was able to conclude to my own satisfaction that no such movement existed. (stabilized example of Z311 and Z312 in motion below) Bill Miller

Jack, go to this link to see if one of these people can put you in touch with Diana so you can ask her yourself. http://www.bestpsychicmediums.com/thelist.htm