Bill Miller

Cranial fluid has been misrepresented as blood many times ... I did it for years until I was corrected by someone who knew the facts. Bill Miller

David, can you cite any examples in support of what you say? In support of the blood mist seen on the Zapruder film, I ask that you start by talking to Jack's doctor. Jack writes; "CSF (Cerebral-Spinal Fluid) is totally colorless. I know. When I was attacked in 1991, CSF dripped from my ear for two weeks from a skull fracture until an operation was performed to close the fracture. The brain itself CONTAINS NO BLOOD. The CSF looks like water, but is slightly oily, and tastes like vaseline. I know. For two weeks it leaked into my mouth through the eustacian tube. The purported BLOODY SPRAY alleged by the Zfilm cannot show blood from the brain; any blood would have to be from arteries, veins, and capilliaries feeding the scalp." I have included some links that discuss just what cranial fluid is, David ... Enjoy! http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=crania...amp;oi=scholart Bill Miller Myra, The evidence that you claim that I ignore is the same evidence that I have presented in Dallas. Also, you misspelled "Connally" Bill Miller

Your credentials are presented in the quality and accuracy of the information that you post. Your 1/16th of a second remark for the time frame for the mist cloud to be seen is in error for several frames of the Zapruder frame show the mist drifting back over the President's head despite you saying otherwise. Below is one such example. I have personally posted a slowed down frame by frame clip with red arrows inserted showing the blood mist in motion, so if you have not found it, then you didn't search hard enough, so keep looking! Below is a link from an EXPERT who teaches people like Cyril Wecht about blood spray .... maybe it will better help you in your study. Bill Miller http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ic=7695&hl=

Myra, it is just as interesting to me that you have not bothered searching the archives for this information for it has been addressed not only here, but on Lancer, as well. I will address it once again just for you .... Let's get the blood issue straight first of all .... it was not blood, but rather the cranial fluid which when released from JFK's head - it was more of a watery mist. That mist was thrown into a stiff breeze which quickly pushed the mist cloud back over the President's head. If you wish to test this - try spitting into the wind and see what happens. If you doubt the wind gust that occurred at the time of the head shot, then watch the coats on Hill, Moorman and the BL at that moment and you will see them been blood wildly to the east to southeast. The error over the Greer head turn was a result of its author thinking that Greer's head didn't move during a couple of frames once he started his head turn. When I checked this out for myself, I found that Greer's head was in fact turning with each frame once his actual head motion started and that his head turn was no faster than other peoples head turns during the motorcade trip from Love Field to Dealey Plaza. You will note a light shift on the top of Greer's head which the alteration author missed. That shift was a result of the head turning between those frames and the grid example clearly shows this IMO. The examples I speak of are offered to you below so that you may learn something from them. Again I will say this ... there is a reason why even the smuttiest tabloids don't even touch these claims even if you fell for them. Bill Miller

Repeated response, thus I deleted its content. see next posted response. Thanks!

Jack, what is the source for the quote? Also, is it not possible that Sitzman assumed that Zapruder might be filming her when in fact he may have been merely waiting for the right moment to start filming like he did when she got up to the Hester's? (Personal noe: I have aimed my cameras many times in the plaza and other places so to get a feel of what I might be filming soon for one reason or another, thus I feel that is what Zapruder was doing and that Sitzman made a wrong assumption. I didn't hear in Sitzman's comment that she knew for sure that Zapruder was actually running his camera, nor did I see where she had ever seen herself on his film as she walked towards him. All this makes me think that iwhat Sitzman said was only supposition on her part. Bill Miller

Jack, you rely on peoples lack of knowledge of the subject so to feel as though they support your nonsense. The alleged limo stop has been addressed many times. When witnesses said the motorcade stopped for several seconds at the time of the kill shot to the President - people like yourself attributed their remarks to the limo, which is in error. Moorman's photo, which was filmed for TV not 30 - 35 minutes following the assassination, shows the limo in motion. Maybe Myra doesn't know this stuff and I personally wouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to be honest enough to point it out to her. Costella's alleged proof for alteration has also been mentioned in the past. Costella didn't seem to have a clue as to why the Life Magazine images were sharper than the MPI version. For some odd reason, Costella got it backwards and thought the MPI version should have been sharper than the Life stills published in their magazine. So once again I will point out that MPI used filters and other processes that caused a loss of sharpness to their Zfilm. Myra can think what she wishes and if she really buys into the mistakes you guys have made, then let her assist in trying to get even the most disrespected tabloids to pick up the story! You guys made claims that should have shaken the world and yet once educated people looked at what you came up with - they shook their heads and considered your claims ridiculous and this is why you have not gotten an ounce of interest shown from any news agencies - tabloid or otherwise. Bill Miller

The problem I have with what you guys are saying is that all along we have been talking about a piece of film that has been alleged to be altered and whether or not it could be undetectable by modern scientific study and expertise. If you (Jack) have missed this repeated point, then I will be happy to direct you to those statements. To take the position that any alleged alterations were good enough many years ago is like saying that the proof offered that people were witches, which caused them to be burned at the stake, was good enough! Even now you say the alterations were undetectable for more than 30 years and I am still asking WHAT ALTERATIONS HAVE BEEN DETECTED??? The Enquirer ran a story some years ago that JFK was still alive and living in the basement of the White House, so if they would publish that garbage, then why do you think they don't run with the claims you make? I believe it is because they can draw a cartoonish looking picture of JFK being pushed around the Rose Garden in a wheelchair, but they cannot sell the type of mistakes that has been made concerning JFK's assassination in the name of alteration concerning real images. Bill Miller David, if you were an expert in film and its transfer properties, then you would know the answer to your question. Even more stacked against you is the fact that we covered this before when I posted Groden's reasons for saying what he did and you came across as not being able to follow the data. Also, the book that mentioned Mary Poppins was "Assassination Science" and it was Fetzer and Mantik who mentioned that movie and the technology of that era. Both authors participated in the HOAX book that followed. My referencing HOAX was an error on my part and while I have corrected the record - the point still stands. Bill Miller

If you insist regarding Mary Poppins frames, just tell us, ALL of us, your source for and where the frames came from. AND what's the matter with the Poppins mattes, if anything -- Lamson you better get in here and help this guy out, he's out of his league, AGAIN... of course Bill, you can always find a optical film printing lab tech to help you out. EH? I understand one hangs around DPlaza selling JFK memoriabilia[/color] If I understand you correctly, David - you are calling Groden an "optical film printing lab tech" when in reality Groden has achieved the highest level of expertise in optical printing. Now having made you aware of this - what level have you reached in actual film developing and processing and analyzing? Let's look at your nonsense this way ... If the ridiculous things you say were even remotely accurate, then you'd be getting some attention for what you have discovered. So far, you haven't even gotten the National Inquirer interested in repeating what you've got to say. Bill Miller

First of all, Jack ... I stated that "more than one expert" has said the Zapruder fim was authentic - the term "numerous" is of your doing. We have also seen the results of the vast amount of study you have done on the Zapruder film from wrongly claiming Moorman was in the street, people not moving, Toni Foster being 7 feet tall, to Mrs. Franzen growing between frames and in every instance you appear to have not studied the Zfilm at all. For instance, your study of the Zfilm came up with the idea that Mrs. Franzen must have grown betwen frames, but in reality she had merely stepped backwards which raised her elevation in Zapruder's field of view. So while I admire your interest in the JFK case ... your mentioning the amount of study you have given the photographical record is like someone saying they have been going to high school for the past 43 years in an effort to finally get a diploma. Bill Miller

Our good friend Robert Groden examined the camera original film and has said that it is authentic. I posted several of Groden's findings and how he reached the conclusions that he did and not once did you offer anything to the contrary. I read a response one day that said that the software needed to do such alterations had not been invented by 1963, so what does that mean to those of you who have so much invested in saying otherwise? All anyone is asking for is a sensible response to the points we raise and to date you have failed miserably to prove your case. Bill Miller

Get out your copy of the "Hoax" book and I bet if you look in the index that you will find who mentioned the movie Mary Poppins and why. As far as what is the matter with those Mary Poppins images I posted ... go back and read the text that accompanied them. If then you still do not see what I was talking about, then it is little wonder why you have not been able to follow even the most simplest of the points that I have posted to this forum. Bill Miller And tell us, David ... just how well built was that transistor radio back in 1963 compared to todays technology ??? And BTW, we were not able to get to the moon in 1963 and is that not the issue here! Bill Miller

Charles, either you cannot understand the answer because this exact thing has been addressed in several threads already or you have chosen not to hear it. Your question was as follows; "WHY....cannot the most brilliant minds on this Earth.....with totally unlimited resources and space age equipment, NOT figure out a way to alter a simple piece of 8mm Kodacolor film?" The answer is as simple as to why there was no space shuttle in 1963/64. What answer do you not understand out of the following .... * Zapruder had the foresight to remain with his camera original film and upon having three copies made of it on the afternoon of the assassination - ABRAHAM KEPT ONE WITH HIM even after loaning two out to the FBI, the SS, and then Life Magazine on the following day. Nothing short of magic would allow the best minds in the world to be able to alter a film that Zapruder kept with himself. After all, one cannot alter a film unless they have acess to ALL the copy prints or else the house of cards will certainly come falling down. * The window of time to have done all these alterations was not there. Healy stated that the original film may have been destroyed on the first day, but the fact is that Zapruder kept his original film with him (not to mention the first genertation copy print). By Sunday, Life Magazine was publishing numerous film frames from the Zapruder film, but Zapruder still had his first generation print. * NO ONE knew if all the assassination films and photos of the assassination had been acounted for. In fact, Muchmore's film wasn't even known to exist until the following Monday and was shown on television before the Feds ever knew it existed. Now I ask, wouldn't the smartest minds in the world be sharp enough to realize the danger of this potential problem? * I previously had pointed out that the so-called smartest people in the world with all the resources available had allegedly failed in making a perfect "BackYard Photo" of Oswald and they had only one to four pictures to alter, so is it your position that they were so inept to fail miserably on a still photo, but were magicians with film which was a far more complicated matter? My position is that one cancels out the other and that it cannot be both ways. * The problem with Kodachrome film and why one cannot produce the same images after alteration was covered in another thread. Such things as loss of sharpness of the image, color shifting, and grain appearance from blowing-up images and then shrinking them back down the old fashion way was not possible to do without experts detecting what has happened. Some basic insights on this matter can be seen on the attached links. The best link with grain examples is not up at this time, but it was copied and pasted in an earlier thread concerning possible Zfilm alteration. Go back and review it and hopefully it will give you a better insight to the matter. http://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Photograph.html http://en.mimi.hu/photography/grain.html Bill Miller

David, the Zfilm has been examined by more than one expert in one field and has been declared to be the camera original. The points made in favor of those findings have seemingly been over your head or not satisfactory for your level of paranoia, so who will scientifically test the film, David? The reason I point this out is that what ever findings are discovered in relation to the film being authentic - all someone like yourself has to do is then question the veracity of the examiner. It's a never ending game to be played by people who have nothing better to do IMO. Now, valid points that have been raised must now be answered before one can even get to your position over film testing and that is for you to explain how the alterations took place (the old fashion way) and how were they done so not to be detectable by modern standards. It was the smartest thing Zapruder could have done when he had copies made before anyhing could get wrecked and it was even smarter that he kept the best copy print with him. So please tell this forum how one can alter a copy of a print that they never had in their possession???????????? Your position takes on the notion that it didn't matter if Zapruder had his copy with him and I am telling you that to have a cause of probable action, you must first have opportunity because after all - it was you who mentioned what a court of law would think when looking at the allegations of alteration. Disney Studio was the best of the best, David ... and Disney Studio was the who was mentioned in the book you keep telling people to read. It is your evidence that has fallen short, so show a hint of class and admit it. (Oh that is right, you have admitted it more than once, then denied it, then admitted it, and then denied it once again despite there being a forum archive recording your past statements.) To date, you have not shown that any of your examples has gone undetected to modern scientific examination. If you have such information, then by all means feel free to share it. It is not my job to let someone like yourself to just throw names out there in hopes something sticks. The people who wrote the book "Hoax" and mentioned the Mary Poppins film is who you should be asking for that information. Once you get their copy, then you can do what I did to test the accuracy of your use of that particular movie. Bill Miller

The above remark is a sign of ignorance concerning what is actually being claimed in the name of Zfilm alteration. If I understand the comment correctly, Ed says that if a claim of alteration is questioned, then the claim must be true. For instance, the Mary Poppins example clearly shows that 1964 technology did not allow Disney Studios to produce a flawless film alteration. Another example was the rejection that someone had merely painted in Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. We went to the NBC footage and found that Moorman's photo was filmed for TV not 30 minutes following the assassination while Mary's photo was still in her possession and it shows the pedestal to have two people standing on it, thus the claim someone addd Zapruder and Sitzman to the pedestal was pure hogwash due to a lack of knowledge of the photographical record. So in the final analysis, it is Ed who has no grounds for saying what he did other than he simply is oblivious to the evidence that has been presented to date. Bill Miller

David, your continued say-nothing-non-responses say a lot about your inability to address the issues before you. As far as the Mary Poppins clips go - they came from the Ed Forum archive because they were posted in response to your nonsense the last time the Mary Poppins Movie was discussed. (Maybe b ecause you didn't bother facing the facts last time ... it has caused you to not remember it) For the record - It is the same Mary Poppins Movie that was mentioned in Hoax .... you people did study the movie frames before mentioning it in "Hoax" - didn't you or did you all do as it now appears ... you used the Mary Poppins Movie for an example without thoroughly examining the possibilities that it could produce the results you had purposed! Below is just another example of how the 1964 alterations were detectable. Bill Miller

Yes, I am happy that some researcheres see the diffefrence between saying a piece of film could be altered compared to saying a piece of film could have been altered to escape modern day scientific study. In the book "Hoax", it referenced the Mary Poppin's movie of 1964 and the animations offered as proof of whether altering a film was possible at that time. It was believed that Disney Studio's had the best of the best working for them and it was not overnight or even in a matter of days as the alterationist must believe the Zapruder film was altered, Disney had months to create their animations and when played at normal speed - a person cannot see the tell-tale signs of fakery, but when the frames are broken down and reviewed with close scrutiny and by only using the untrained naked eye ... the signs of the alteration are quite easily spotted. The alleged proof for alteration of the assasination films and photos have not stood up to follow-up investigations. (see below) Can nyou see thye changing shoe sole thickness taking place on the turtles backs and the outline of Julie Andrews in the bottom example? There are more signs, but this was Disney's best effort in 1964 and it was offered as proof of possible Zfilm altering in the "Hoax" book. Bill Miller

Excuse me ... is this not an educational forum? You are the one making the claims, thus all that is beling asked of you is to answer the questions put forth so the members here can better evaluate this matter. Instead, all we are getting from you is a run-a-round like that in quotes above that didn't address a single point put to you. I may email John Simkin and ask him to start a propagada section so people like yourself can just make accusations and not have to explain their position when their remarks are put to scrutiny, but until then I will ask what I believe to be sensible questions to see if you are serious about your position or whether you are merely trolling in order to confuse those people who do want to learn something. My prior questions stand and I will let the record reflect whether or not you can actually address these key points so people can see how well you have thought out your position. Bill Miller

The WC's report is a falsehood IMO if one actually rationally examines what it has said and why and it can be shown to be so without trying to create another falsehood. If you are going to consider scenarios on how a court of law is going to view the evidence, then please keep in mind that the same court of law requires 'probable cause' just to have the opportunity for the case to be heard. So far there has been NOTHING of factual basis presented by anyone to cause a grand-jury believe the Zfilm was altered. Those of us who look at these alteration claims try and do so from an informed perspective as a jury would be instructed to do so because we want accountability ..... and while I would like nothing more than for someone to expose an altered Zapruder film to the world - the evidence for that to happen has not been presented to date. Once again you have said something that could be possible, but there is no evidence that it was done. In fact, even if the original film had been destroyed the first day, you have not explained why those people who saw it the first day have not claimed it has been altered. Furthermore, no one has explained how then did someone make the changes to the first generation print that Zapruder held back and kept in his possession. After all, if the original film has been altered and/or then destroyed .... how does one not only deal with those individuals who have already seen it and when could they have swapped out an altered copy for the unaltered copy that Zapruder kept in his possession??? Please answer these points in a reasonable a logically fashion - thanks! Again .... the above statement is illogical given the order of events that it supposes for proof. The facts of the case is that the original Zfilm and a first generation print remained with Zapruder until Saturday, thus there could not have been a "if" when it comes to the original film being destroyed the first day. It may be interesting to imagine what hings would have been like had JFK of lived, but it is only a pleasant though and has nothing to do with reality as we know it IMO. If someone can offer a sensible explanation for even wasting time on such an impossibility, then I would enjoy hearing it. Bill Miller

If you continue to quote me, please do so correctly and in context. Years ago when I said the way I would alter the film is to make prints, alter the prints, and rephotograph them...I was not familiar with how "hollywood" special effects people had far advanced techninques using optical printers, etc. Back then I was saying HOW I WOULD DO THE ALTERATION, and it was a very valid concept I presented which was sometimes used. Quoting "old opinions" out of context is bad manners. Don't use me to bolster your uninformed conclusions. Jack YEARS AGO! Jack, you were still saying it in May of this year. You said and I quote: "But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short, would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA, USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about 500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist." The date of the thread where I obtained your post was in a May 2006 thread that can be found on this very forum. Bill Miller

Jack, we are not talking about the OFFICIAL STORY, but rather the OFFICIAL FILMS AND PHOTOGRAPHS. Proof of alteration has come from people like yourself who will claim that Moorman and Hill were standing in the street while saying a photo showing their shadows coming from the south pasture is genuine. This fact alone shows the level of study that has been done in the name of Zfilm alteration. I once again offer an example below. Bill Miller

David, these are the same idiotic say-nothing responses you always give. This forum has an archived database where people can read the responses that have been given to you, thus repeating them will not benefit anyone. For instance, your 'nutty comment about cake and motion is just another example of you playing games rather than addressing the facts in an intelligent way. Jack White has said that to alter the Zfilm - "STILLS" would need to be made, thus 'stills' are exactly what we are talking about here. And do I have to remind you that it didn't take a Ph.D. to know that Moorman's photo was filmed for television not 30 minutes following the shooting and Jack and the Ph.D., because they obviously were not aware of this, screwed the pooch when they claimed Zapruder and Sitzman were added to the pedestal at a later time. For anyone to ignore this and pretend that one needs a Ph.D. to be capable of properly researching these matters is totally asinine and somewhat dishonest in light of the comment you make above which says, "I go with the Z-film is altered" ... because you have admitted more than once to these forum members that you have no proof of Zfilm alteration and/or you have not seen any proof of Zfilm alteration, thus to state the opposite now shows that you merely say whatever you need to say to get by for the moment. And I bet that in each case, just as with the Mary Poppin's movie mentioned in "Hoax" that anyone can find the signs of alteration that was done in each film. Examples of the Mary Poppins movie have already been displayed on this forum. Bill Miller

I'll start with the latter comment first .... I have read the book, as well as other historians and researchers who actually knew the history of the Zfilm and Life Magazine's involvement in the matter and it was apparent that Costella didn't have his facts right at times. Costella was so far off in his approach that he didn't even understand why Life's prints were clearer than the work MPI created and yet he manages to always reach the same conclusion - now that is a mystery in itself. The "if" side of the equation I give for arguments sake was presented to show that even if it was possible to alter any of the film copies and somehow magically make Zapruder's copy print take on whatever alterations needed (presumably while Z's copy was in his possession), then one has to go to the next phase and say what exactly was altered in the Zapruder film that is different than what is seen on the other assassination films and photographs ... I look for forward to hearing this explaination, which one will not find in the "HOAX" book. Something to think about: I keep hearing it said that the technology was so advanced as to accomplish such an alteration feat in 1963/64, yet it is those same alleged masters of manipulation that merely punched a hole in the license plate of the car seen in the photograph taken at General Walker's house and who allegedly failed so miserably at manipulating the infamous Back Yard Photographs. So what we have is alterationist claiming these people could alter images so well as to fool even todays investigators in one instant and in the next breath they claim the alterations were so bad that their dirty work can be easily spotted. So which is it ???? Bill Miller

For answers, read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. Jack Jack, just answer the big question and stop trying to sell another copy of a book that has been a laughing stock around the JFK assassination community in recent years. Bill Miller

My investigation has shown to my satisfaction that in 1963, the Zapruder film could not have been altered so to be undetectable by todays standards of investigation. But regardless, if possible, then there has to be opportunity. I would like someone to tell me how the Government was able to alter film copies that they did not have in their possession? Zapruder kept Two films with him through Saturday where Life then gets possession of the original film so to make slides. By late Satuday night or early Sunday - Life Magazine is putting key frames into print and yet Zapruder still has a first generation copy in his possesion. If any of the other film copies were altered, then they sure didn't have ALL the copies, so tell me how it is that Zapruder's print still shows the EXACT same things as the other prints that some alleged could have been altered?? By Sundsy, if any Zfilm copies had been altered, then how could they know that other assassination films would not show up afterwards and expose the dirty deed??? Marie Muchmore's film for example was not known to exist until after 1PM Monday ... AFTER Life had put key frames into print, so how can an alteration supporter explain this all away and do it rationally and logically???? Bill Miller