Bill Miller

I was invited here by the administrator. Furthermore, I am not trying to convince you of anything for I feel that trolls are not on a forum such as this so to learn anything. Let the record show that 99.9% of what you post is either disjointed say nothing ramblings that never address the issues being discussed or you are purposely and repeatedly misstating the evidence. One example of this is Len's posting of Fielding's email. David, you not only cannot discount alteration, but you cannot choose one side or the other either! One day you'll be saying that you have seen NO PROOF of alteration and the next day you will say that you believe the Zapruder film is altered. Now in your last remark you are back to not "discounting" alteration which implies you have nothing to substantiate that alteration is present in the Zfilm. With you it is a belief system that needs no proof in your mind. In another response you mention color shifting and Kodachrome II film as if I don't know what I'm talking about, but what I have said comes from actual experts .... unlike some forum xxxxx who can't even see the noticeable mistakes in the Mary Poppins clips I posted or who pretends not to know how to get a copy of such a film so to see if what I have posted is accurate or not. You offer no examples to rebut what the experts say, but instead you just post the same non-informative crap you always post. In your mind Zavada is wrong, Fielding is wrong, Groden is wrong, the numerous experts Mack has spoken to is wrong, and only YOU (who is on record for flip flopping on the issue without any proof for doing so), the guy who cannot produce a shred of proof to the contradict the experts, is correct. So no one is trying to convince you of anything, but rather we set out to expose your modus-operandi so others can see what's based on the facts and what is propaganda that is being used in place of facts. Bill Miller

Mark, You one a few people who looks at the JFK case with logic and common sense. How interesting it would be if some of us could go through the evidence together and offer our own report based on all the facts with an unbiased common sense approach. If you ever find a forum like that - count me in if they'll have me. Bill

I for one think that is a great approach and that this case certainly deserves all the suspicion that one can muster. However, once a particular trail has been found to be a dead end - is it right to continue misleading others that it leads somewhere? This alteration thing has become nothing more than a belief system. It's like noticing that a coat and hat hanging on a coat rack can look like a mysterious stranger under the right circumstances, but once someone has turned on the light and seen it for what it is ... how justified is it for one to continue telling others that it still could be a mysterious stranger? To date there has not been one alteration claim that has withstood scrutiny. I would like nothing more than to see some valid proof for a change that the Zapruder film has been altered to hide the facts. Bill Miller

Charles, I have stated that one must first educate themselves on a subject before being qualified to reach a logical conclusion. I have spent countless hours doing just this by going to those people who do have the expertise. So far all I have seen you go on is your own paranoid beliefs. I will ask you once again - name an expert who says that Kodachrome II film could be undetectably altered in the way you people have been suggesting??? Healy likes to cite Fielding as a reference, but David misstates what Fielding had said, which then misleads the paranoids like yourself who don't have the time or interest in seeing if what you are being told is true or not. Below is a message sent to Len in Fielding's own words. Bill Miller 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

Len, I recall a saying once that went something like this ..... 'If a lie is told enough times, then it becomes the truth'. I think that this is all someone like David has left to hope for. These guys started with a theory and worked backwards. Along the way they limited themselves on how much to test their theory in order not to have to give it up. So when they come across someone who is bringing up these things that the alterationist had hoped not to ever address - they take the 'Baghdad Bob Healy' approach. We all know David can get a copy of Disney's movie whether it be movie film, video tape, or DVD and he will still find the flaws I have pointed out. But to keep from having to say he is wrong - he pretends not to know the source or how to check it out on his own. It surely doesn't reflect well on his ability to research anything, which brings us back to the reason of why David is here in the first place? Healy will question Zavada's findings or Groden's conclusions concerning the Zapruder film while at the same time show everyone that he (David) hasn't the ability to not only understand what has been repeatedly said, but that he also isn't even capable of knowing how to get a Disney movie and check the errors for himself. The reason that David simply doesn't get the movie so to humiliate me because he knows the problems are real that I presented to this forum. Bill Miller Charles, I think the reasons for your feeling you have not stated anything illogical is said best when someone once wrote that 'the difference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid man will never know when he is wrong'. The government recruits some of the finest minds in the world to work for them, but they don't hire them all. This means that there are also some minds still out in the world who have equal intelligence and you have not produced a single one of them to rebut what has been said about Kodachrome II film. Bill Miller

Only an idiot or someone who is trying to fool someone of lesser intelligence would think that using tools that were not available in 1963 in order to bolster their 'possible alteration' position would somehow be acceptable. The really ridiculous part of all this is that your modern day computer software generated composites were not any good either. Groden discussed the problems with doing each alteration the old fashion way and I am certain that you are aware of the same problems that would have been faced duiring that era, which is why you were forced to use up-to-date computer software. Even Jack explained how such alterations would have needed to be done and this is nothing new to you for several of us has pointed this out to you in the past. I personally can only assume that you have no valid argument when you continue to try and fool people in order to give a false impression of undetectable alterations even by todays standards being possible in 1963. Going from 8 x 10 inch print images back to the very small 8MM frame size can also be called 'reducing the size' or 'compressing the size of the image' back to the original Zapruder film size .... your lack of understanding of the english language is not my fault. I can only assume that you have no feasible rebuttal on that point either when you can only play word games in an attempt to draw attention away from your failure to logically promote your position. I have lost track at how many times it has been pointed out that no one has said that altering images didn't exist in 1963/64. The argument has been that they could not have occurred to Kodachrome II film and gone undetected to those people qualified to know what to look for. Now what would qualify someone to make such a call .... I'd start by finding someone who could understand the simple points that you continue to miss. The source for the Mary Poppins frames can be found in the credit headings of every copy of that movie. Are you waiting for one of your fellow researchers to loan you the buck or two so to get a copy of Disney's movie so you can do your own captures? Your ignorance and desire to play games on this point only proves the things I and others have been saying about you. Bill Miller

Charlie, in order to help your position - start having someone read your post before putting them on a public forum because the things you are saying rank in the BS department, as well. Robert Groden does not take the government's position and he says it was impossible to have done what you claim and explains why that is. Then someone like you comes along with no expertise and obviously no understanding of the english language because you admit that you know nothing about Kodachrome II film and you try to make anyone who doesn't agree with you as some sort of government supporter. Even more asinine is that you are being given valid reasons why the Zfilm isn't altered, while your only rebuttal is that you are paranoid about everything. Do you know the government believes that 2 + 2 = 4, so does that mean that because Groden, Zavada, Craig, Mack, myself, or anyone else who has learned how to add and agrees with the total the government comes up with when adding 2 + 2 - that this means we are all government supporters, too? What appears to have happened is that your arguement is so weak, that you've now resorted to known false propaganda to try and salvage your unfounded theory. Bill Miller

And let me remind everyone that Healy didn't make his composite examples the old fashion way in a dark room, making enlargements from 8MM film and shrinking them back down again, but rather by playing around on a computer with software that didn't exist back in the 60's. This is what one has to do when he has no valid argument to make, thus he relies on narrow minded followers who will hopefully not pay any attention to that one major flaw in his position. Bill Miller

Charlie, the remarks you have made to Craig have reflected why it is that people like yourself have bought into the Zfilm alteration nonsense. If one wishes to separate what they should be paranoid about from what not to be paranoid about, then he or she should do it through educating themselves .... after all, is this not the EDUCATION FORUM? I made this next comment a long time ago and I will say it again because it applies to your remarks concerning your position over the possibilty of the Zapruder film being altered ... "It's like saying it is a possibility to take a trip from the earth to the moon without oxygen by simply holding your breath which in theory it is correct, but realistically it is impossible!" 2006 Bill Miller What has happened here is that you and others have accepted the Zfilm alteration possibility because it fits into the realm of your paranoia. Lifton for example started out with a theory about what happened in Dealey Plaza and to fit that theory he needed the Zapruder film to be altered. Another example, "Murder from Within" by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams was witten in the mid-60's pertaining to possible film alteration to the Zfilm. The book wasn't actually published until the mid-70's. Jack White has done the same thing with Costella's support over Zapruder and Sitzman not being on the pedestal or Moorman being in the street. These guys start with a theory and then look for a way to show it. These two ignored the FACT that Moorman's photo was filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination and it shows two people on the pedestal and it also shows the gap seen in all the Moorman prints .... both of which Jack still says to this day is nothing more than an alteration. In other words, if one cannot find proof to support his theory - then he merely has to say that the photographical record showing otherwise must be a hoax. I have heard it said that maybe Zavada, Groden, and others may have been bought off .... again, this is nothing more than someone making irrational and unsupported accusations to fit what they wish to believe (possibly due to the same paranoia you claim to have). There are scientist and researchers around the world who have had an interest in the JFK assassination and many more who are interested in the technology advances concerning photography and to this day no one of such education and credentials has disputed what Zavada has said pertaining to KODACHROME II film and its charachteristics over this alteration business. Instead, you have relied on a select few who have not the credentials to be considered reliable. Instead, they make claims of someone being in the street, gaps that don't exist, people pasted into the photographical record, and so on because of bad information or a lack thereof. Jack still claims Moorman was in the street and that no one was ever on the pedestal despite the undisputable evidence to the contrary. Before "Hoax" was ever written, we were pointing out that Moorman's photo was filmed for TV within 30 minutes after the assassination and having never left Mary's control, yet the claims of alteration still went into Fetzer's book. And before "Hoax" was written - Jack had claimed that Josiah Thompson invented a gap in his drum scan, yet when Jack was then asked to put up a Moorman print showing no gap predating the drum scan - nothing has ever been produced by Jack or any alteration supporter to show otherwise. That gap was mentioned once again only recently and withgout the simple proof that has been asked for in support of it. So while it is OK to question the evidence because you don't trust those who collected it and/or controlled it - it is not OK to keep misstating the evidence and to ignore the contradictory facts to fit one's theory or to try and promote unnecessary paranoia in others. Bill Miller

One reason it is not seen on the Zfilm or any other assassination film is that it probably didn't happen that late in the shooting. Because Bronson's still photo isn't sharp - and while it isn't easy to say, there could be some blurring of the umbrella in Bronson's slide. That may mean that ithe umbrella was in motion at that point. Bronson's slide came around Z229/230 as I recall. If the latter is true, then it had already occurred before Zapruder panned past the Umbrella Man. Bill Miller

I am accusing no one of lying or doing anything illegal. However, how do I know what Groden's, Zavada's, or any "experts" MOTIVES are when they gave their opinions? Am I to believe because they are called experts, that I am to be naive enough to believe that opinions by experts in any field cannot be BOUGHT ? Are these men special "Film Angels" sent to earth by the Almighty to clarify the issue. In almost every aspect of this case, I have seen testimony by some of who have been considered "The Most Honorable Men" in our country....testimony that is an absolute lie. I have seen a former U.S. President admittedly alter JFK assassination evidence. Is Robert Groden acclaimed to be, along with his other "credentials", a paragon of honesty and fair play? How am "I MYSELF" to believe that Mr. Zavada actually gives a damned about the "truth" of 8mm alteration. How does Robert Groden, Gary Mack, or Roland Zavada acquire the knowlege of how many light years in advance of the film industry, that intelligence agency expertise might be? The reason that this debate continues is because it is apparent to those arguing "IMPOSSIBILITY", that not one of those who know that it is "possible" will ever "dare" to show their complicity. If one did dare to do so, they would have to be declared insane or have their loved ones found dead......most likely both. Charles, how well have you thought things thrtough? Let me address each paragraph accordingly as to your remarks so you can see it from the outside looking in. Paragraph 1) I supposed that the same can be said about CT's who possibly have been bought to post responses on forums that are designed to make CT's as a whole look like baffoons. Claiming that anyone can be bought out so to lie is a statement designed to offer a back door to slip out of when sound logical reasoning have just barged through the front door! Paragraph 2) Zavada, as far as I know, has no interest in promoting one side or the other. His accuracy reflects his reputation, thus why risk it on something when it's not necessary? Robert Groden has been and still is one of the most vocal CT's known in this field, so why would Groden claim conspiracy in every aspect of the assassination only then to cover-up the Zfilm being altered - IT DOESN"T MAKE ANY SENSE! Paragraph 3) These individuals acquired their knowledge through education and/or experience. Bill Miller

I will say this once again to you because your memory seems to be as bad as your knowledge of the JFK assassination. Groden testified that the single photo presented to him had been retouched to make it appear Simpson wore the said shoes. Robert's point was that even though the other pictures shot by another phoographer had surfaced - it did not mean that the single photo in question taken by a different photographer had not been tampered with for what ever motive one may have for doing it. I would think that a person with your level of paranoia and suspicion could appreciate Robert's position. About color shifting, Gary Mack used this example once - "To follow up on color shift when duplicating motion picture film, here's another example, and it's something everyone can understand and appreciate. Read "National Nightmare" so to get the facts straight. Better yet, have someone read it to you so you can have them explain what the tougher sentences area saying. Groden stated how he reached his conclusion ... just because you don't like what he said doesn't mean he was in error. BTW, Trask new book shows the films side by side - aren't you reading these post thoroughly? Yes, David ... but even if I didn't know what a light pack was - you can bet your last dollar that the experts that I have spoken about know exactly what it is. The problem here is that you know little to nothing about the properties of Kodachrome II film and in case you have never been told this before - IGNORANCE ON YOUR PART IS NOT A DEFENSE. Bill Miller

BINGO!!! Healy knows damned well where those frames came from. The problem with guys like him is that he hasn't the class to admit when he is wrong - instead he chooses to play stupid about the whole thing. Bill Miller More snake oil, Jack? Let us see what you did in 1963 that supports your position. Zavada doesn't buy your nonsense, Groden has said you have been wrong in every instance pertaining to film alteration, the people Mack has worked with don't buy into what you say and to think of it - what experienced expert does support your ramblings??? About color shifting, Gary Mack used this example once - "To follow up on color shift when duplicating motion picture film, here's another example, and it's something everyone can understand and appreciate. Take a good look at the colors of your clothing with indoor lighting and then outdoors in full sunlight. The two will absolutely not appear the same, due to the characteristics of sunlight vs. artificial light. The difference is even more noticeable with fluorescent lighting. That color shift absolutely cannot be fully corrected in regular Kodachrome II movie film by any combination of filters. Copying 8mm movie film involves the use of artificial light and that is what causes the color changes. A sharp-eyed expert will notice and can measure the difference. Feel free to pass this along to those who would like to understand the significance of the physics involved with daylight Kodachrome II movie film."

David, a blind man can see the shoe sole thicknes of Dick Van Dyke change between frames ... I stated that there was an ongoing shoe sole thickness problem in my original post, so why is it that you are the only screwball who still ask 'what is wrong with the clip' ... ? You never cease to amaze me at how stupid you pretend to be and I can only assume this is why even the smuttiest of tabloids has not carried your alleged earth shattering nonsense. I think this quote fits your response, David .... "One way to attempt to create a lone assassin illusion is to pretend to be a conspiracy supporter and then continually post some of the most ludicrous claims one can think of". What is there not to understand, David? If someone said that early prehistoric man had invented the wheel .... would you then be telling us that the same prehistoric man must have also been driving cars as well? A computer is worthless when it comes to doing film alterations if the software to make such alterations has not been invented yet. Now how hard is that for someone to follow! Bill Miller

I'd like to point out a few things that I agree with and disagree with and state why I take the position that I do and because it is a bit confusing to me as to who is saying waht - I'll just speak directly to each quote of interest. This is just one example of someone finding two pieces of a puzzle that can be made to fit together while ignoring the fact that the other sides do not match anywhere else with the remaining pieces. It is not enough to say that computers existed in the 1960's or that NASA had them because it is the SOFTWARE that would be needed to make computer animations. Jack has admitted in the past that such technology didn't exist back then and went on to point out how the alterations would have been done by hand the old fashion way by creating 8 x 10 images of the Zframes. Of course David cannot say what scenses were as extensive as the ones discussed in "Hoax". Furthermore, David has stated for quite a while that he has seen NO PROOF of alteration to the Zfilm, at least until recently, but has not explained what is altered and why it didn't register with him when he made his prior statements of never seeing proof of alteration. Is it not interesting that the alleged forgers couldn't alter the so-called Backyard photos without detection, but somehow were said to be good enough to do it to the Zfilm and not have it noiced for 30 plus years. Once again, the problem is that the grains on a film are all unique, thus inserting film grain on a image such as an arn or leg from one roll of film would show a different pattern of grain than the rest of the image which was present on the original film. Sometimes it appears that Jack just isn 't playing dumb, but actually is dumb. Jack knows Groden has examined the alleged oriiginal Zfilm and has offered his opinion as to the films authenticty and why Robert believes what he does. Jack's way of dealing with the facts is to ignore them. I It's called "double-talk". Its tthe same as saying you have not seen proof of the Zfilm beling altered only to tell people you believe the Zfilm is altered. Bill Miller

Jack, the above is what I said about enlarging a very small 8MM Zframe and enlarging it to an 8 x 10 so to alter the image and how the loss of sharpness it would cause would be obvious to a trained eye even once shrunken back down to 8MM size. I find it amazing that you accept that fact here and wanted to argue against it when pointed out to you over possible Zfilm altering. I went even further and said that the film grain would be become blurred when enlarged in this manner and if placed back onto 8MM film stock - the previously enlarged grains would remain blurred around the edges and would be noticeable upon extreme magnification. Groden pointed this problem out - Mack pointed this problem out - and you guys wanted to act like it wouldn't happen, yet in this case you openly admit the loss of sharpness when you think it doesn't apply to your position concerning the effects of the processes used to make a film alteration. Bill Miller

Jack, once again you are incorrect because you do not pay close enough attention to what has been said. Groden has worked with Kodachrome II film and it was his experience that he spoke of. Mack refers me to Zavada's report and also told me that he had read the same things from sources on Kodachrome II film unrelated to Zavada. I hope this has been made clear enough for you to follow. Bill Miller dgh: roflmfao -- ROFLMFAO -- those that know what to look for, geesh! Think Mary Poppins, btw, where'd those frames come from, AGAIN? The frames came from Disney because they were taken from Disney's movie "Mary Poppins". How hard can it be to understand that point! Bill Miller Jack, you are so incorrect that it is embarrassing to even be discussing this with someone who claims to know as much as you do. You claim to be Groden's dear friend, so call the man and have him explain to you why you are incorrect. Even the copies made of the camera original showed color shift and for the reasons I have mentioned prior. Maybe to someone who just merely glances at one copy compared to the camera original - they would not see a difference, but to someone who is experienced and knows what to look for - the differences are there. Bill Miller

It is Kodachrome IIA, not "11A". The only film Life obtained on Saturday was the original film and their prints for the Magazine were being made and ready for shipping by Sunday. t that point the Feds had two lesser quality prints and Zapruder still had the best print in his possesion. http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Zapru...Film_Chrono.htm Bill Miller

The camera original was used to make the copies. Bill Miller

Jack, I got this information from several independent sources - Mack and Groden being two of them. Below is part of a message that Gary Mack sent me on the matter. "You asked about copying Kodachrome II film in regard to the Zapruder film alteration theory. Here is what I learned a few years ago from Roland Zavada, who was part of Kodak's team of scientists that invented Kodachrome II movie film in 1961. Regular 8mm Kodachrome II movie film (the Zapruder film) was designed to be used by amateurs, not professionals, and it's characteristics are noticeably different from professional film stock such as that used by television stations in the pre-tape days. While Kodachrome II film can be copied, it cannot be copied as accurately as professionals require. The reason is that the film is balanced for natural sunlight, not the artificial light used in mechanical copying processes like optical printers. According to Zavada, with Kodachrome II film, no filters can properly compensate for the shift in color tones caused by using artificial light. The resulting change would be easily detectable by anyone who knows what to look for. This is not a color temperature problem, according to Zavada, it is a well-known design characteristic of Kodachrome II film. In those days, Kodak manufactured special film for copying 8mm Kodachrome II movie film, but even that film stock could not copy accurately. It was good enough for most amateurs, but not for professionals. Let me explain the problem this way: we've all visited someone's house and noticed their TV picture in which faces appear a little too green or too pink. It's the same problem with duplicating Kodachrome II film - the colors will be noticeably inaccurate (though not to that degree) In short, alteration of Kodachrome II movie film cannot be accomplished without the results being detectable by those who know what to look for." If you have information to the contrary, Jack ... by all means share it with us. Bill Miller

Lee, the tree I spoke of will not be found in pictures taken of the plaza in recent years, unlike what Jack thinks. As I recall, I saw the tree that I believed it to be in the photo taken on the afternoon of the assassination ... the same day Moorman took her photo. That photo should be in Trask's book "POTP". Josiah Thompson would have to post his photo because I don't have a copy of it. Bill Miller

I do not want to offend anyone, nor waste much time on this matter, but Jack is in error about seeing any part of a car in Moorman's Polaroid. What is seen is the top of a tree that was further back in the parkinglot and nothing more. Josiah Thompson replicated Moorman's photo when he researched the Hat Man location and that tree top was still present. Bill Miller

BIG LEAGUES? Are you telling me that YOU are in the big leagues ... in your own mind possibly. For months you were admitting that you have not seen any proof of alteration, which was about the only truthful thing that you have said. (All coming long after "Hoax" was out in print) Not only do you act like you don't know where to find a copy of the Mary Poppins movie, which any idiot could do quite easily, you went as far as to pretend not to understand what was possibly wrong with the images within. This leaves any serious researcher to think that you are either really stupid or you are just a xxxxx with his mouse in one hand and something else in the other! I believe it to be the latter and that it's the reason that you cannot ever address the issues before you - it's why you only give back moronic replies about the 'big leagues' rather than to counter with facts - and its why you clowns cannot get even the most reckless of tabloid journals to print your alleged ground breaking news. Let the record to date stand as a testimonial to the things I have said. It is from Zavada that these things can be learned. Case in point - the copy prints Zapruder had made the day of the assassination have differences in sharpness and color shifts when examined against the original. Groden says the same thing and Gary Mack, who has spoken to many photographic experts, has found them all to mirror the same information pertaining to Kodachrome II film. If you just happen to know the one expert in all the world who says differently, feel free to share his or her name with the forum members. Bill Miller I think you are talking about the photo and film experts I have spoken with, not to mention those who other researchers have spoken to. Coming from a guy who thought a white woman was black because he couldn't see the difference - I don't take your remarks to seriously. I can tell you however, you are in error as usual. Please keep in mind that we are discussing Kodachrome II film here. Bill Miller

Charles, take the time to learn as much as possible about the type of film Zapruder used. Kodachrome film DOES NOT copy accurately. No filters can compensate for the shift in color when dealing with Kodachrome II film. Kodachrome II was also made for filming in sunlight and to a copy film one needs artificial light, which experts could detect the differences right away. Someone like Healy may tell you that this information is incorrect because he has seen it done, but I can assure you that he has worked with PROFESSIONAL FILM whereas the difference in this case is that I am talking about AMATEUR FILM, which is what Zapruder used. Bill Miller David, you don't have to wait for anything ... just free up your trolling hand and call some experts to see if you can find one that says something any different. I am always amazed at how some guy who works with an optical printer seems to always disregard what the experts have said even when that same guy couldn't even detect the errors in the Mary Poppins clips that I posted despite my telling what they they were in the same post. Maybe it's time you prove something to us instead of the other way around. By the way, you have said more than once that you HAVE NOT seen any signs of alteration to the Zapruder film and just a few days ago you stated just the opposite, but didn't say what had changed your mind. Could you tell this forum why you have now flipped 180 degrees so we can see what you have learned in recent days that you didn't know before when the matter has come up? Thanks! Bill Miller

Tom, you should be smarter than to say some of the things you mentioned here. Of course the head bleeds once you have damaged the arteries and blood vessels ... JFK's coat and shirt are examples of this, but the bullet passed through JFK's head just under 2000 fps before much bleeding could have possibly occurred. Instead the missle splattered the crainial fluid which was tossed up in the air. I should also point out that Zapruder's camera could not possibly record an object moving at even 2X the speed of sound, let alone 3X, thus why you would think that you should see the debris flying from the back of JFK's head is beyond me. I'd like to think that everyone is capable of looking at the evidence in a logical fashion, but I know that does not happen. All I can do is tell you that no doctor (Dallas or otherwise) has ever said that the brain matter that was blown from JFK's head should have been seen on a blurry piece of film running at 18 frames per second. If you have data to the contrary, then I'd appreciate seeing it. perhaps Wild Bill and the Lady of forensic *Spatter-Matter* have opened a new area of study... ? David, the area of study about spatter has been known about in the JFK assassination community for years and mentioned on this forum several times in the past .... you just didn't bother to try and understand it. Bill Miller