Bill Miller

Well, David .... unless you can hold the camera originals in your hand and thats not going to ever happen, and seeing how no one is going to play your game - maybe you should consider spanking your monkey somewhere else. Bill Miller

No, David ... just the people who merely state a position, but aren't able to give a logical response based on facts for saying what they do. Bill Miller

Sam Kinney drove the SS follow-up car.

Yes, the alteration claims were tagged nonsense alright ........... within seconds of seeing them and the ridiculous mistakes that were made that helped create those claims. As far as 'some not being sure about alteration' ... those would be the people who don't know why a first generation Life copy of the Zapruder frames would be sharper than a multi-generation MPI version of the Zapruder film. To thoser people - they will always not be sure about anything pertaining to the photographical record. Bill Miller

How does one equate Greer with the SS follow-up car? Bill Miller

Paul, you can call a rock - a tree, but it is no truer by you merely repeating it over and over again. Zapruder's film never captured the President's turn onto Elm Street. As far as Abe's film not being a clock for the assassination .... I guess this would be true for only those who cannot compute film frames into incrememnts of time. It should be pointed out to those who forget - The copy prints made from the camera original on 11/22/63 do not have any frames removed, thus the actual assassination does have a clock! Bill Miller So in other words, Paul ... are you saying that Dan Rather actually saw the President's head go violently forward on the Zapruder film ??? Bill Miller

As usual you are not listening to what has been said, David. YOU are the one who says that the camera original needs to be studied .... not copies made from said film. If you read very carefully what I said ... I basically supported what you have said many times by my suggesting that you not concern yourself with the "LATEST VERSION" (as you put it), but rather concern yourself with the alleged original Zapruder film. If need be ... I can find examples of you posting such an opinion in the event that you have forgotten your prior position. I would tell you to read the thread to get your answer, but seeing how you had so much trouble following something as simple as you studying the camera original instead of copies of the same film .... maybe you cannot follow my and Paul's discussion on your own. I would start by using someone who knows why the first generation prints that Life Magazine made are sharper than the multi-generation MPI version. Bill Miller

No, David, it was posted that Zavada had taken ill which caused him to delay working on this subject. This was obvious from reading all your say-nothing responses. Any idiot would know that if you had proof of anything, then you would have made it known. The latest copy of the Zfilm is meaningless ... you set up having your compositors go view the original Zfilm, but take someone with you who would know what to look for. Bill Miller

Sorry, Paul ... it must have been Paul McCartney who posted: "On 22 November 1963, Zapruder said he filmed the turn from Houston. Reporters who viewed the film 23 November and shortly thereafter said/wrote they saw the turn. Film as available to be viewed as film - since late 1964? - has NO turn. Not that difficult, surely? Paul" I guess what threw me was that the text was found in YOUR response, had YOUR name and YOUR photo attached to it ... thus I believed it was YOU who wrote the post. I suggest you contact John Simkin and let him know that someone is posting under your name. As I said before, the "abreast" remark attributed to Zapruder can be easliy understood by cross-referencing that remark to what other witnesses had said. Such witnesses such as Phil Willis, Hugh Betzner, Mary Woodard, Bill Newman, just to name a few. There is a point in time when JFK's location on Elm Street fits their descriptions. One can take any one statement and try and make something out of nothing from it, but when these witnesses statements are plotted out - the limo's position on Elm Street becomes quit obvious. Mary Woodard for example said that the President was directly out in front of her location while smiling and waving to her and the women she was standing near when the first shot rang out. That time span falls between Z193 to Z198. Willis said the first shot sounded just prior to his taking his photo, Betzner said that he had just snapped his shutter when the first shot sounded. Betzner and Willis are talking about a time frame between Z189 to Z202. I have given you an explanation as to why Zapruder chose the words that he did ... I cannot give you the ability to formulate a rational understanding of the evidence pertaining to this particular matter. Bill Miller

Of course the original film was of no threat. As I recall, it was that film that led to the first version to where The president was said to have been shot, then Connally, then the President again. So what I am saying is that the film was being used just as it was to try and determine what may have happened. Bill Miller

Yet you continue to respond like an ill-tempered little kid ... always on ther side of paranoia - Interesting! Zavada is not a young man anymore and life throws people curves that they must get through. I am sure that you will one day get your report, but as I said before - Zavada had a good excuse for his delay, unlike yours whereas you don't produce on your promises because you have spent too much time trolling JFK forums. If my MO was 'exposing the piss-poor research that went into the film and photo alteration claims', then it was certainly accurate. It was that same approach that backed you into a corner whereas you had no choice but to admit that you too, have never seen any signs of film and photo alteration .... a remark that I am sure haunts you to this day and certainly one I will not let you to forget any time soon. Bill Miller

Nice post, Shanet ... why was it not in response to Jack's original provocative post which contained the very insinuations that you speak of ??? Bill Miller Dawn, many lawyers are thought of as nothing more than 'paid whores', so if you do not wish to be considered one of them, then you may wish to be critical of Jack from time to time as well. I suggest that you read his initial post where he used the names of four forum members for no other reason than to provoke a response and yet you didn't feel compelled to even open your mouth and speak up. I don't disagree with your position - I just find it disgustingly bias. Bill Miller

David, I cannot help but notice that while you don't mind not keeping YOUR promises to produce ... you seem to be overly concerned about Zavada's findings. Unlike the claims found in the 'Hoax' book concerning film and photo alteration which appears to have gotten little forethought before being put into print, people like Zavada take their time so to strive for accuracy for they are playing to a more advance scholarly crowd than what we find on these forums. I hope that your lack of patience with Zavada and Jack's new collection of illustrations isn't a sign of another new alteration book in the works that is dedicated to poor research practices everywhere. Bill Miller

Brendan, When I first read your reply, I was going to remind you what John Simkin said about such meaningless responses, especially now in light of there having to be even more forum space purchased. It would seem that members would stop running up forum space by copying and pasting long replies when there may be only a small fraction of a prior response that we're addressing at any given moment or to cease making say-nothing responses without actual facts or data incorporated into them so not to unecessarily impose on the pocketbook of the forum administrators, but in this case it seems after looking at Jack's childish behavior that he had to implement your name into his otherwise rarely intelligent post - he asked for it. The only thing I can ask is that we consider whether Jack's provocative berhavior warrants a response at all. Bill Miller

BS, you would "do it" so to educate others for this is supposed to be a "learning forum". Also, you "do it" so to show others that you aren't just some sick individual seeking attention ... it looks better if you can show that you have some knowledge of the case. Bill Miller Jack, quit being a pompous ass! You wanted to get others imput, so do not whine when you do not like the answer. There is nothing wrong with what we see in the reflections in the limo ... because you no longer grasp spacing and perspective, it doesn't mean that something is wrong with the images. Bill Miller

Does on car to mention who's studied we are talking about? It appears that a fair amount of people in and around Dealey Plaza came outside on their lunch hour to view the President. Bill Miller

Jack, the issue here again is "PERSPECTIVE" and "TIMING". The Zapruder film see's the people reflected in the limo in the Towner images at a steep angle, thus these people will appear somewhat bunched together. A good example of this is to compare the people seen near the Stemmons sign in the Willis photo with how they appear in the Bronson slide which shows a more perpendicular view of Elm Street. It is also worth noting that the people seen in the Towner images are around the bend in the street and out of Zapruder's field of view. (see example below) Also, the Zapruder film doesn't capture the same moment in time as Towner's photo, thus people will not be positioned as they were in one image compared to the other. Bill Miller I have to agree with Tom 100%. I am as quick as anyone to point out what I believe to be a bad observation, but BS has been taking it too far and by that I mean by his giving snide remarks without an educational explanation ... when this happens it makes his responses look to have originated from emotion instead of logic and sound reasoning. Bill Miller

Jack, I wasn't going to put anyone on the spot, but you leave me no choice. Yes, you used to be invited to speak at those conferences, but when you started in with all those bogus alteration claims - the people who put those conferences on have said that they will never allow you to speak in front of their crowds again. I was present during one of those conversations and heard it with my own ears. Since that date you have never been asked to speak in Dallas again .... END OF STORY! Bill Miller Yeh, only Jack would tell us that a camera lens cannot make objects further away look much closer to the camera than they really are ... especially when we have several assassination photos showing a train car that is clear across the RR yard looking as if it is parked just behind the fence. I then posted such a photo of a statue whereas a building that is a block away looks like it is just beyond the statue, but who cares - Jack says it cannot happen. Move over David, we now have 'Baghdad Bob Jack White' in the house! Bill Miller

Please understand that for many of the more serious researchers - Jack's ridiculous claims have caused great dispair in the research community. So much so that both COPA and Lancer refuse to allow Jack to speak at their conferences. But what angers so many people is that people like Jack continue to push their fraudulent claims on the unsuspecting researchers even after they have been shown to be in error. Just look at the 'double talk' response I offered which Jack has seen before ... how many times over the years must Jack hear about this before finally removing his crazy claim from the research community? So it isn't the fact that Jack made a mistake that brings peoples wrath upon him, instead it is his continuation of misleading people after his work has been shown to be in grave error. Bill Miller

Jack, there is nothing to compare to your figures because you have said over and over again that Zapruder was never on the pedestal and that the conspirators merely added him to the various assassination films and photos. Now you are stating that you have figures documenting the height of Zapruder's lens as he stood on the pedestal - these are two contradictory positions you are wishing to debate. Bill Miller I totally agree with you on JFK not deserving to be shot down in the middle of the street, but the angle that Zapruder had not being what you think it should be - I disagree with. I say this because I have seen test films shot from the same pedestal and their angle matched that of Zapruder's within inches. Below is a test shot I took of Groden when I studied the man seen the pyracantha bush in the Zapruder film. My angle matches that of Zapruder's film angle. Bill Miller

Dawn, as you may recall - Jackie never remembered even crawling onto the back of the limo .... most likely because of being in total shock at the time. It was after she got back to her seat that she got down and held her husband's head in her lap. Her keeping her head down started before leaving the plaza - it can be seen on the Daniels film showing the limo coming out of the west side of the triple underpass - and in several still photos taken as the limo raced towards Parkland. Bill Miller

David, posting disjointed sentences that promotes paranoia without facts to support it is not truth. Bill Miller

Well, it is at least good to hear you say that until now you have not seen any real evidence of film tampering. Maybe after you see the images in post #3 and give some thought to Jackie merely trying to give a description of a matter of seconds 6.5 months after the assassination ... that possibly you still haven't seen any real evidence of Zfilm alteration. Bill Miller Dawn, I (like yourself) have not seen any evidence of alteration to the Zapruder film. Each time I have tested an alteration claim it took little time to see the error that was made by the person making the alteration claim. Bill Miller

"It was NOT a train, but rather three Pullman cars" "It can still be a "train" with the locomotive disconnected" The above two statements of Jack's is mere double-talk. He did the exact same thing in some of his alteration claims while his cheerleaders looked on in silence. Below is one such example. Jack spent considerable time telling us how Moorman and Hill were standing in the street as the President's car approached. Jack used film captures from the Muchmore film and also the Bronson slide, yet he said the following about Altgens photographs in the 'Hoax' book that Healy tells people they should read. Take note where Moorman and Hill's shadows are seen passing over the curb which is what the Zupruder film shows .... To this day Jack still tells his readers that Hill and Moorman were standing in the street and to this day Jack has not admitted that his claiming that Altgens 6, which he claims to be genuine, totally debunks Jack's Zfilm alteration claim. The same can be said about Healy saying the other day that after seing Lifton's 'Pig on a Leash' article that he wasn't sure where Moorman was. So which is the true statement - Zapruder film altered to show Hill and Moorman in the grass or the Altgens 6 photo is genuine which shows Hill and Moorman were not in the street ????? Bill Miller

see below ....