Bill Miller

Have you not seen any video's of a plane flying into the ground .... the ground offers pretty good resistence and yet the plane just seems to be absorbed by the impact and sometimes leaves nothing more than a burn spot behind with countless pieces of very small debris. Bill Miller

Len, please allow me to have a stab at this possible alteration stuff ... who knows, it may be fun. I think that to accomplish the effect that you previously described ... that they would only need a 24 hour window of time, an optical printer, and the help of David Copperfield. Hey, this thinking up crazy possibilities is kind of fun after all! Bill Miller

Those are good questions. As far as eye witnesses go, if some kind of remote controlled drone, with no resemblance to a United Airlines 767, were flown into the tower at over 500 mph, then it's possible that people standing on the street would not have gotten a good enough look at it to positively identify it as such. Brian, any thoughts to what happened to all those passengers and crew that were abord those planes if they were drones that hit Towers??? Bill Miller

A very interesting concept ... just one question though ... If the suicide plane was a special effect, then what was all the actual eye witnesses looking at??? And if there actually was a plane that flew into the tower, then why the need for a special effect??? Bill Miller

You should have come to the past few Lancer conferences, Jack if you wanted to see new and original research. ..... and then there are the words of a well known researcher who has done plenty of original research and never bothers with forums - Robert Groden: "In the matter of the Zapruder films authenticity and many of the other issues such as foreshortening, and other technical issues, you have been 100% right and Jack has been 100% wrong."

David, maybe you should learn more about the things Jack says before trying to pretend to know more than what you do. Jack's claim is that the pedestal was empty DURING the assassination .... not POST assassination. There is no vast photo archives showing an empty pedestal during the assassination. Jack's only evidence in support of his claim is Wiegman's film which is so blurry that Zapruder and Sitzman blur into the background, thus only appear to be invisible. Bill Miller Sitzman immediately after the shooting talking to a reporter about her boss just filming the assassination. How motion blur causes images to blend into the background on B&W images.

Thanks, Michael. Perceptive. Jack, Mike wasn't paying you a compliment ... better read what he said again. I believe he is saying that it is you do the provoking now. What you have just said is no different than a man standing in direct sunlight and telling people that it is night time. Robert Groden: "In the matter of the Zapruder films authenticity and many of the other issues such as foreshortening, and other technical issues, you have been 100% right and Jack has been 100% wrong." Bill Miller

I took Jean Hill's word for it for as I have posted several times in the past - Jean said to me that she saw Zapruder and the woman standing on the pedestal. To validate what Jean said to me I further considered that Zapruder's film ended up with the Zapruder home movies exposed onto the same roll of film, that Zapruder had the film in his safe immediately after the assassination, that no one else has claimed to have been on that pedestal filming the assassination except Zapruder, that Sitzman claims that she and her boss was on the pedestal during the assassination, that no one has ever said they saw Zapruder or Sitzman anywhere else during the assassination, that Beatrice Hester and Sitzman who was interviewed after the assassination and had said their boss filmed the assassination, and that Trask new book shows a good print of Zapruder inside the shelter with the Hester's immediately after the shooting tells me Zapruder was on that pedestal. Bill Miller

I do not see how you would know who has what experience when you seem to have all your time wrapped up in trolling. The individual you are attempting to praise for having this great knowledge of the photographical record is the same guy who calls one photo or film altered only to call another image "genuine" which shows not only the same moment in time, but also the same exact things as the alleged altered images. That would also be the same person who cannot understand why a train car can be seen in one photo and not in the other despite the two photographers angles to the colonnade being different. It would also be the same person who says that Moorman's photo has been altered by having Zapruder and Sitzman added to the pedestal while not knowing that same camera original showing Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal was filmed for TV not 30 minutes after the assassination while never being out of Moorman's possession. So what I am saying is that there apparently seems to be a few people who have as much knowledge of the photographical record (if not more) than Jack has. But on the other hand ... some people can pretend otherwise if it supports their objective --------- Baghdad Bob Healy Bill Miller

Right, Jack ... so you can label them? Now it is you who is the provocatuer. Bill Miller It's OK, Mike ... I never thought otherwise. I only wished to show that there is another part of this forum membership who does not want me to back down on this assassination and post assassination Dealey Plaza alteration foolishiness. Bill Miller

.... and all I have to do is post and YOU respond ... unlike myself, you do it almost always without any evidence to support what you're saying. Bill Miller

Jack has spent too much time on JFK Research (aka. The Jack White Show) where he was protected from criticism. There Jack could make his own rules and relish the idea that he would not be held to the same standards as the other members who didn't agree with him. Below is the post from this forum that Len made which was followed by the forum xxxxx who hijacked this thread by referencing Zavada's report on the Zapruder film. Jack seems to only be concerned about thread hijacking if it is done by those who do not support his alteration claims. Post 16 - Len: Jack for all your complaints about provocateurs on this forum lately the worst offender has been you, stop being such a hypocrite. Let’s see you keep accusing Bill of being somebody else, you started what was it three or four threads attacking Gary Mack, you called Evan a xxxx for correctly citing your position that the Moon landings were faked. Just today you accused Brendan, Craig, Bill and I of being accessories after the fact to the JFK assassination because we cast doubt on your theory that just about every image taken in DP that day was altered, funny you didn’t level that accusation at Grodin or Martin Schakleford or Josiah Thompson who have likewise opposed your theories. And now you insinuate without any evidence that Evan was responsible for bringing down the forum should I point out that your co-author John Costella is also an Australian and that he has written sophisticated computer programs and that Sid Walker a webmaster also hails from “down under”. It seems that John Simkin was wrong anyway according to info turned up by John Dolva and Dave Weaver the hacker was based in Osaka not Australia. Evan’s position AFAIK is that he has no position regarding the assassination, He has opposed your nonsense regarding the Moon landings, ‘chemtrails’ and 9/11. In all those cases he gets the better of you so there would be no need from him to want to crash the forum. Post 18 - Healy: When it comes to "theories", how is Roalnd Zavada and Ray Fielding doing re the upcoming new and improved ZAVADA report....? As you, representing [to this forum] their side of the report; how are they pprogressing? 8 months and counting.

If you follow the plane of Jackie's right arm you should see that the pink area you think is her shoulder is far too high to be that. The pink area is the view of the inside of JFK's head. Bill Miller

I wanted to share these images with members of this forum who may not have a clear picture as to how the overturned bone plate ended up hanging down in front of President Kennedy's face. I am under the impression that some researchers may wrongly feel that the Zapruder film shows a large wound to the President's face. I hope that the images below offer a better look at where this wound occurred so to understand why it looks the way it does on the Zapruder film. Bill Miller

Don't alarm yourself with Brendan ... he never cites facts, thus he is the true poster boy for trolling. Getting back to your post ... I fail to see why you think the face is damaged in the Zapruder film? You do know, don't you - that the bone plate from atop of the head is overturned and hanging down the right front side of JFK's face. Because it is hanging down like this - we are seeing the underside of JFK's bone plate/skull bone and not a damaged face. If anything it is the autopsy photo showing from where this bone plate came from that may be altered in some way. Certainly, the size of the bone plate in the autopsy photo does not match the plate seen on the Zfilm. Bill Miller

Brian, do you care to tell us why you think the autopsy photos of JFK's face contradict the Zapruder film? Bill Miller

Mike, when we talked last, I complimented you and others for being able to keep up with all the other kinds of evidence of the case. I told you that while some researchers can juggle all those Cuban names and various players - I cannot! The Photographical record is my area of expertise and interest, thus that is the area I concentrate on. You may have noticed that Jack chimes in on other parts of the case which I do not respond to for the reasons I stated above. We will have to agree to disagree on my degree of interest pertaining to the alteration aspect of the case. Without allowing anyone to see Robert's remarks about Jack's alteration work ... I have quoted Robert pertaining to my work in the photographical area of the case. My work has been praised by such people as Dennis David, William Law, Joan Mellen, Gary Mack, Debra Conway, Sherry Gutierrez, and the list goes on. I get emails from people on this forum who I never heard of before who read these threads who have asked that I never back down, so it appears that I am not going to be able to please them and you at the same time. Allow me to share just a few of some of those messages ... "I'm almost getting to where I can't stand to read these posts any more. The abject stupidity of these photo alteration groupies is overwhelming me. Anyway, just a note to commend you on keeping the fight alive for rational logic." "Hi Bill, Just want you to know that I agree with 98.5 % of everything you say. I know Jack White thinks the Z film was highly altered and that the moon landing(s) were faked. Interestingly for me, I gave Neil Armstrong a ride in my taxi in Scottsdale, Arizona in 1984....." "I just want to voice my appreciation for all the fine photographic analysis you do, though I imagine it must be tiring having to deal with the Fetzer-White-Healey gang. Your work on the Zapruder film at the Lancer forum saved me from almost believing "The Zapruder Hoax" fantasies." From Robert Groden, "Bill: Whenever you have ever asked for clarification or answers to any photographic issues, I have tried to help. Your work has always been right on the money. In the matter of the Zapruder film’s authenticity and many of the other issues such as foreshortening, and other technical issues, you have been 100% right and Jack has been 100% wrong. I always have and always will back you when you are correct. The record must remain straight. This Zapruder film alteration foolishness has done so much harm, that it can not be measured. It is now spilling over into other areas of the photographic evidence in the Kennedy case. I am extremely frustrated by it all. You have always defended me, and my work, against vicious attacks from several members of the lunatic fringe in the Kennedy case over the years. This has always been, and is, appreciated as ever. In all the years that I’ve known you, I have been amazed at your grasp of photographic science and the issues of the Kennedy case photographic evidence. I have never known you to be wrong. The small computer visuals that you have created are spectacular. Your work, Bill, has always been right on. I have always supported you, and will continue to do so. In the issues that have been raised about photo analysis of the Zapruder film and nearly all, if not completely all, of the other issues that I am aware of, it is you who has been correct in every case. Robert"

Mike, I have posted on this before, so why are you pretending not to heard it? If I were the opposition and wanted to derail a proper investigation based on new evidence towards a conspiracy, I would bring up the alteration claims so to make CT's as a whole look like complete lunatics. Is this fair - absolutely not, but it has been a successful modus-operandi that has worked against us in the past. If there was a conspiracy, then lets show our cards based on responsible research so to be given a voice that can be taken seriously. Jack has a responsibilty as someone who is well known in this field to do everything possible to be accurate. You may not remember this, but I still have some of my original print outs from the threads when this alteration thing first came to light for me on the JFK Research forum ... it may have been you that furnished me with them. The title of my initial responses said 'Jack, I think you may be mistaken' or words to that effect. The tone was light and respectful, but then it was I who was attacked by Jack. Jack gets the blunt of the reprecussions for alteration these days for he is responsible for 98% of all of it. I have been just as vocal against others who have made the same mistakes and I don't just say they are wrong - I show why they are wrong. Let me also remind you of something else ... the alteration threads get more reads than most of the threads on a single page put together. When I visit the plaza each year around the anniversary, I get more querstions pertaining to the alteration claims than anything else. Then I hear people like yourself complain about these threads, but yet you also read them on an obvious regular basis. That's similar to those individuals who complain about the silly stories in the National Enquirer and yet they buy and read each copy that hits the newsstands. The day that my major concern is for Jack White and not attempting to keep the record straight as to what happened to JFK - then that will be the day I walk away from it all. If you wish to complain about something and how it effects the readers of these forums, then address thread after thread of these types of responses ... "my-gosh... spoken like a true dry-goods photog..... pass the foam-core -- your making a ass out of yourself" Bill Miller Not "heroworship", David - RESPECT even when I disagree with something he has said. Here is Robert's email address ... RobertG1@airmail.net ... ask him to respond to your concerns and feel free to post them. If you disagree with him, then by all means state your position in rebuttal. I look forward to reading your first attempt at actual research. Bill Miller

Mike, I have always respected your insight on the JFK assassination and agreed with nearly all of it, but in this case you are saying to leave the cancer alone and allow it to spread unchallenged. I find your way of handing this problem by ignoring it to be irresponsible and I cannot allow JFK to not have a voice in this matter. If I had a web page where I could just provide a link to the rebuttals of Jack's claims, then I would be happy with that, but that is not the case at this time. Lancer had such a link at one point and all that work was lost and has never been replaced. In some instances I have sat silent concerning some foolish claim Jack has posted only to have Jack (himself) provoke a response by telling any unsuspected readers that my silence is proof that is claim is valid. What happens when some new researcher reads that response and because to many individuals who are not as knowledgable about the case as you or I will easily be mislead by what appears to be a good alteration claim on the surface - then they too will be spreading that cancer in the name of truth. Garrison was said to have used these words, "Let justice be done though the Heavens fall" ... I agree with them totally. If it is your position to just ignore Jack and not challenge is claims, then you and I will have to agree to disagree. I am really sick and tired of hearing about 'poor Jack' when I think about a poor President who had his head blown apart all over a city street for no other reason than because some people disgreed with his views. That was an attack in my opinion! Bill Miller

Let me ask you a question, Dawn. Here is a hypothetical scenario for you to address ... in one of your trials you have the other side producing a filmed statement of a witness that supports their position. But during your investigation you found that the filmed interview was edited by the opposition to mislead the jury at the expense of your client's freedom. Do you object to the court and ask for sanctions against the opposing side for attempting to decieve the court or do you just say, 'Its OK, Judge ... we like them so lets pretend it didn't happen'? You people seem to not be able to separate Jack from his alteration work, nor do you seem to be able to grasp the damage that it has caused and will continue to cause in the future as unsuspecting readers hear that garbage. Let me share something Groden has said seeing how you trust him so much ... Groden: "The record must remain straight " " " " " " This Zapruder film alteration foolishness has done so much harm, that it can not be measured. It is now spilling over into other areas of the photographic evidence in the Kennedy case. I am extremely frustrated by it all " " " " " " Jack knows how disappointed I am about the damage that has been done by the irresponsible crap that has misled so many people in this case." So Dawn, you either get it or you don't .... things will not change as long as Jack continues to push what Robert called "irresponsible crap that has misled so many people". Bill Miller

"Recent" means the past decade or so concerning Jack's alteration claims pertaining the photographical record. I view this work separate from his earlier works prior to the Badge Man study. Mike, I respond for those to see that are new to this matter - not for your sake who has been hearing of this for many years. What really sticks out however is that while you complain about my rebutting Jack's alteration claims - you seem to continue to read my responses. You know which threads to avoid if you are offended by my responses, I invite you to act accordingly. You have it wrong, Mike. I am going to ridicule and expose Jack's false claims of alteration until I'm too old and frail to post anymore! Bill Miller

Mike, I mentioned Jack's poorly researched "JFK assassination alteration claims" which extend well beyond the Zapruder film to Moorman's photo, Betzner's photo, Willis's photo, Bond's photos, Bronson's photo and etc... In fact, I never mentioned the Zapruder film. The reason I mentioned the "JFK assassination alteration claims" is because the same mistakes Jack makes on one alteration topic ... he carries it over onto the next topic. No one is attacking Jack ... and by that I am not saying Jack is a son-of-a-bitch or that he is a deviant of some sort. Instead I am saying that Jack either merely glances at these images that he claims to be altered without carefully studying them or he is just inept at looking for details that would tell him if the image is legit or not. Below is the "EXACT" quote for all to see. I have an interest in the photographical record and how it applies to conspiracy, thus I read the Apollo stuff as well. I meant what I said and I have beaten no bones about my feelings concerning such poor research. I also have stated my feelings about those who put Jack's erred claims ahead of the truth. From the Apollo thread you (Mike) referenced - "Evan - you have shown just how inept Jack is at examining images for detail. The points you made are valid and beyond Jack's ability to grasp them. His recent JFK assassination alteration claims are just as poorly researched." Bill Miller

What impresses me about the Nix clip is that the back sray is immediately wider than the debris being pushed out the back of the head. This is exactly what the high speed images Sherry shows in her presentations tell us. While the faster moving debris will eventually widen out - it is the spatter that is widest upon immediate impact that tells the direction of the hit. Bill Miller

Mark, as you must know - a film capturing images at 18 fps cannot pick up artifacts in motion that may be moving upwards to 1500 feet per second. However, the Nix film was capturing images in between the Zfilm exposures because the two cameras were not running in sinc with one another. The Nix camera caught the debris in flight closer to the point of impact because of this. Below are some images that may interest you ... Bill Miller